Press Conference - guest Stanley Knowles, Mar. 17, 1955

Danny knows empty guest tonight on press conference [Music] you're karamaneh Ottawa editor of the claims magazine layout razors good evening from Ottawa ladies and gentlemen our guests on press conference this evening is family no to remember a parliament from Winnipeg north center there would rebel policy but the nose is the parliamentary quip of the CCF cooperative Commonwealth Federation group in the house and here to interview him as Bob McEwan of weekend magazine Robert need him of the London Free Press and Norman Campbell of the Toronto telegram it's Norman Campbell who has the first question for mr. Nolan has been expelled for me pretty favorite party parlor must be good for rejecting the athlete leadership from German rearmament you were recently spokesman for the PCs brief we detected the cold well leadership do you expect to continue a party with I don't think there's any comparison between the two situations are tall and I don't think you think that evil it's hardly my place to comment about what has happened in the United Kingdom after all that's an internal matter over there I might say that said I think personalities were involved and I think too that there was a pretty serious question of loyalty to of a party decision as far as the knife evidence position was concerned in our case while the matter was one of very serious import which engaged our attention for a considerable time we made a decision as far as our group in the house is concerned each man was both the way the self each of both yes mr. Knowles as I understand it the party convention in Edmonton last summer decided that it would oppose German rearmament now then how is it that mr. Colville the leader of the CCF came out in favor of German rearmament since the party convention was opposed to it well it took a rather complicated question but I'll try to a deal with it as as briefly as I can what you have said about the party's convention last summer at Edmonton is in the view of some of us substantially correct but I draw your attention to the fact that that was prior to the London and Paris agreement what was done in Edmonton was that the party took a decision against against German rearmament in the light of the facts as they stood at that time now there's been no convention since then so we did have a meeting of the National Council in January this year and that council discussed the whole question in the light of the NATO protocol which was to come before Parliament and the council reaffirmed the view of the convention most of us in the caucus that took the view that the attitude is expressed by the convention meant that the movement would be against the NATO protocol as well but there wasn't a firm decision by a convention against this specific proposal that was before Parliament which meant that's in the light of that situation each of us had to make up our minds as to what we thought a was the party's position or the party's position would be and what we as individuals thought was the best course to take and it's on that basis that that some of us voted against the motion some followed mr. Kolbo and voted for it and some preferred not to for the talk well in light of this red complicated state of affairs how is the average Canadian water to get delivered just what is CCF policy on this the comedian wanted to take care mr. Cole was you pointless to take your viewpoint well that's true is I met the difficult question until shall I say such time as there is another national conventions of parties meantime I think that the Canadian voter simply has to us be aware of the facts name was at the last convention of the parties expressed itself against German rearmament in principle at that time the National Council of the CCF in the light of the present situation has expressed itself as a gentleman and a majority of us in the caucus expressed that same attitude when the bullet caught well is this is this pretty convention likely to deal with it mr. : where's be awfully pleased about that question III I think that any national convention of the party would likely have the same attitude toward mr. Kohl well as we in our caucus had and as we have expressed in our national executive these are the only two bodies of the national level which have had an opportunity to meet since we had this honest difference of opinion on the flaws Parliament and I am free to say I'm sure that the day after the vote took place in Parliament with the meeting of our caucus at which we unanimously endorsed mr. Cole was leadership and a short while after that we had a meeting of the National Executive of boosting meeting that was called the deal with ordinary business and at that meeting the National exactly we unanimously endorsed mr. Cole as the leader of our party well husband mr. Noles is a member of the party to have an honest disagreement with his party on any such matters can a member decide on any issue that he will express a personal viewpoint well there is no law that says that a member as a matter of fact I feel from planned to ask just you as my friends whether you're asking these questions to us sort of prove the point that the CCF doesn't go in for regimentation is somebody for a tomato sometimes that's that we are a party in which while we have a general philosophy and a general approach after that we all take we do respect the individual conscience and expect members to apply their own let's come along well boil down to you as a party member is free to repudiate your leader stand and the leader is free to repudiate your concession stand where do we go and that sort of a basis how do we know what we're getting well as I have already indicated it isn't quite correct even as one who felt that the Convention position was against trimming the island and would be if it was called again even as one who I felt very strongly both of the CCF member engines from my own views on the matter that we should vote against them in the elements I can't contend that there has been the kind of decision which means that the mr. Kolbo has refuted the prizes and because he didn't go along with that decision I know that you followed be based on this matter which were certain history base of a very high order and you would you would recognize that all who spoke another fight as well as well I spoke from from this conviction about the matter and that was our decision as a caucus but on this issue perhaps the best thing we could do for these movements for the good of the Parliament for the good of Canada as a whole was to bring to bear on the issue the best judgment exhibits such well mr. Knowles I wonder if I could deal with another's matter of policy namely defense mr. Pearson account of External Affairs Minister said recently that if ever there were a major war that involved the United States that Canada is so closely linked that it would be drawn into it to at least I think that's the substance of the statement would you agree with this position well I take it you're referring to the statement that mr. Pearson made that's the meaning of the in Toronto last Monday I'd like to say about that statement of mr. Pearson that perhaps it's good that he made it so that we now know where the Canadian government staff has been a certain amount of shall I say of things were citing on this position of the relationship between the United States and Canada in in foreign policy but we now have it from mr. Pearson that in any conflict to the major consequence I realize you put in the qualifying phrase where survival itself is at stake if the United States is in a conflict Canada is in it as I say we know now where these Canadian government stands to be the United States in relation to form hardware device EC yes but I don't like that stance I still think even though there may be certain realities that we have to face I still think that Canada should maintain a certain amount of Independence for five foreign policy concerns I think we should make our own decisions all right as he was trying to get into just one more thought I'd like to a friend in connection with this matter we know from seasons he has made it public to mr. special planning again has made protest of white and against certain lines of policy that the United States was following I think you've probably gone too far to tell United States are under certain circumstances United States would have to go up without cameras go press go it alone well why should we pay attention to the statements like that anymore now that mr. Pearson is that if the United States is in a conflict of major proportions and all the United States has to do the situs this is it well they know that we're trying to come along so our our independence has been well I wonder if I might ask this question as I understood mr. vision statement is that it's a major war break Canada is sure to be involved it seems to me this statement was as much geographical as political because a major war would involve a threat to the United States over her northern frontier which is to say over Canada the U and the CCF seriously suggest that this is not so no I'm glad you asked that if I didn't make it quite clear certainly if a major war broke out in the sense of a conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union we're involved as much as Belgium was involved in very recent efforts were what I think I have a major way I know this I know this does that's the interpretation that he is trying to place upon the remarks that he made last Monday but I submit that Washington is entitled to take from mr. Perkins remarks the belief that Canadian foreign policy is simply to go along with the United States and if that's denial of our independence of a vaccine or independence of decision in the field of foreign policy which i think is very sir couldn't you also take that to mean that since Canada is involved he wants to have her voice in these matters that the United States may decide to tattle unilaterally but the if before if at the same time you're asking for your voice to be heard you admit that in the last analogies there's going to go along with what the United States is decided it doesn't leave much room for your your voice to carry any weight and I I want to say quite frankly that I speak not really critically about that I think for some disappointment I feel that the chances of his protests to Washington for example the United States should decide to take action is expected tomorrow map to is the chance that mr. Pearson's protest for mr. Dulles the protest of Washington carry much weight has been greatly reduced for the USD just kinda do is the Alembic do you really think so mr. Knowles that that a war a major war in which the very existence of either country is at stake those are we mr. Pearson's words I really think that any such war could could be without the intervention of the Soviet Union do you think that China alone unsupported by the Soviet Union could threaten the very existence of Canada United States that's a good question I don't think either you or I is in a position to answer it but my point is that mr. Dulles is entitled to make the opinion and makes the judgment but that is the kind of war mr. Pearson had in mind mr. dollars is entitled to rely on mr. Pearson coming along because of what he said last Monday and I I wish for a tentative statement the person has been made to say well that doesn't work the others either way presuming that the Canada was invaded wouldn't we be very happy to have left us and perfectly true that this that mr. Pearson did put it that way if it was a war for survival and which either was involved the other would be involved but there's this difference we're not trying to defend Matt sewers come on we're not likely to take the positive or affirmative actions that some of us are afraid the United States might take in other words we're not likely to take the kind of surface of action that would endanger the United States but I can see the possibility of mr. Dulles foreign policy resulting in an action that would endanger can well the who's going to speak for the CPF in this matter is yourself a mr. Corton mr. Holwell and every member of the CCF have have spoken with one voice on the question of the Far East you may have been able to find an honest difference of opinion at their attitude on German rearmament but not one of you or any of your colleagues in the press gallery and there lots of them up there that would find that the business they couldn't find any division so far as for most of the body suits in France mr. Kolbo will do the speaking for us bought it so anyone else we're speaking of a business the same position mr. Cole Effy Spees no chips get the ground just a little bit that we can care to define EPF policy today with regard to the development of natural resources does the CCF still hold by socialization and method nationalization the CCF has a basic position regard to that we believe that natural resources the wealth of the country should be developed for the good of the country as a whole we feel that there is room for private enterprise room certainly room for cooperative enterprise and that there is a large sector that should and could best be developed under public enterprise we're not doctrinaire people that some of our critics make out that want to socialize everything for the sake of socializing it we want to get these development done and in our view there are things that need to be done in Canada today but I think there's something that's happened within the last children today that simply aren't being done by private enterprise I think of the fact I don't know whether it's always been there but golly this afternoon when the I tried once again to get an answer out of the government about the TransCanada pipeline and apparently nothing is being done why because this government want to build it under public ownership and the private company is not prepared to go ahead with us unless they can get government backing of their bonds hasn't a reason apparently when they reach some sort of tentative agreement with the government on a two-way proposition the so-called producers they the big shots of this own were filled up in alberta wouldn't agree through their doing anything because the government was involved and there you have a example of a development that started needed in the country we're not getting it under private enterprise and this government had not prepared to go ahead with it in the public in fact we think that's one of the types of things it should be done by the jump well when you say the CCF no longer is a party of all-out socialization are you guys they no longer was it ever abducting their party in the sense of all-out socialization oh I I would rather interpreting your vagina - afterwards that's angel if I recall it right to me - well it called her the nationalization of land but leave the point in the interest of we're looking over when we get back to the bill another topic that I'd like to bring up here is labor generally better off than the guys - what the conditions under public ownership when under private ownership and not necessarily in some instances you could probably for those instances of the workers under public ownership they're not having as good as they might have it under some private organization of a comfortable kind of and vice versa I think generally speaking the opportunities for the conditions of labor the dissatisfaction are better under public ownership than under private ownership but that isn't the only aspect of the situation that matters it does matter I thought about that but it is also important as to what the benefit the country as a whole gets out of an interest and for that reason as well as for the good of the workers in a particular industry of particular enterprise as we favor things being done on the public base but what degree would you eliminate competition by means public donations I don't think that the competition would be gracefully eliminated there are some natural monopolies where it doesn't apply now any competition the Postal Service at the present time I I think that in this pipeline business that I was talking about this book there's no there's not room now for for competition between pipelines running the length and breadth of this country in other words there are some areas of natural monopolies where competition has no play there are other areas of the economy where having the benefit of the sector for private enterprise and reciprocal profit identify that there is room for complications what about a while what am i loyal in Saskatchewan do you think that the it ought to be developed by the province or by a cooperative or by private enterprise or by all three and if you say all three would any private enterprise come in expecting well that is a pretty complicated question this isn't I suppose Lister I've got to be careful what I say lest you find the juror burst and what's actually happening in Saskatchewan Angela and you face face me with would you that just trying to find out what the VP apology is in so far as possible I would prefer that it be done under public enterprise the difficulty at the provincial level is of course the available financial resources can a province risk the money that is necessary to do the work connected with exploitation and the oil field to clean them into production and because of that situation a province seems to have even a progressive prophesy Saskatchewan seems to have no alternative but to make some arrangements as to releases and royalties and taxes so that the development is done by a private enterprise but that's the greatest possible return from the oil wealth which belong to the people comes back to the problem and those you know to a considerable extent there is development of oil in Saskatchewan under cooperative development ERISA very real aid and encouragement from the government aren't you in effect saying that of a certain stage in development of a country private enterprise really is essential to get a job done and you can't do without I think that there's no denying the fact that in the history of the last 150 or 200 years there's been a place part desta private enterprise plays and maybe this too had to be played by private enterprise in other words I'm not suggesting that the socialism is necessarily the system to start with at the year one but the point does get reached aware for the best development of our resources and for the good of the country as a whole and for bringing to these people of the country the benefits of the resources that we've got a wide measure of public development a white man that socialism does become of a scream important well what you're saying is the private capital should be prepared to risk money well an armin who's being doctrinaire now talk to wouldn't we let's talk about private capital capital you've been around Parliament for a while you you you know the constant requests that are made for released from taxation and subsidies and assistance of all kinds to describe the capital they don't want to risk anything that's always they want to have the name of from employing with capital and to get all the benefits that flow from nominally risking their capital but they want to be protected in in every possible way oh wow what did they want they wanted to free the three hundred some-odd million proposition and they wanted to fifty or seventy-five million of it to us to be equity capital that would get the games but they wanted the rest of it to be bonds it would be guaranteed by the government and that sir that's a pretty typical example today of this so-called risk well I had only have been more money lost developing oils and everything made out of it well use my home maybe you advance that argument yourself mister North Saskatchewan couldn't afford to take the risk they could over a long run but you have the political difficulties there the fact that you you are using public money under certain which are run on a short term that might be a rather difficult but in the long run you're not suggesting that this that private capital in oil and any other field has really lost would you like to comment on the relative merits of private and public enterprise in a more limited field such as a box factory that was briefly run in Prince Albert by a CCS government and the boot factory and the painting factory and the sauce factory all of which I believe rather include telephones and the bus lines and some of the other public enterprises in succession successful it is frequently prefer yeah I definitely had any comment I just suggest because this is comment on your side of the fence you talk about the ones I decided it's no I wonder if I could have I skip a few problems as some of the members of your party mister knows have been interpreted as making a remarks that a derogatory to the province of Quebec is this an indication that perhaps you've written Quebec off and future CCF territories I don't accept your premise and said they were interpreted in being a rather all right some people have misinterpreted statements that have been made by some of our members and being derogatory to one great section of our country and the so you asked the question based on that I I submit that there have not been statements of the kind that has been so misinterpreted and that the CPF despite the fact that we recognize we have is a great deal of electoral strengthen Quebec haven't written off no national political price failed to recognize the importance in the Canadian political scene of the great the province of Quebec well mister knows what what do you see as the the real future of the CCF party in Canada you do see any possibility of a stick forming a governess for the CPF party at the future of Canada in either the hopes of matter tied up with the peers of the seats yet it may it may take time but actually although we're near the end of the hour time we didn't intend to it to do the Federation at this point would you say if you agree with the recent statement of premier Douglas of Saskatchewan those Canada should or is about to return the two-party system I think that that will come before along this house you and I I don't know and my feelings I think it would be a good idea most people say that they wanted to party system around endure I agree but you know which you know that I think that one of the two of course will be ours that that's inevitable only in the nature of social development right but has your parties installed in the last little vial mr. Noles because other a parties have taken over some of their basic platform we don't feel unhappy about the fact that we've been selling our ideas to the Canadian people so well that the other parties has found it necessary to implement some of those ideas and then even say they've done it for some things that they that they approach across the year and that I am satisfied that there in other words we're we're winning and they say we're winning already and that we're getting some of our ideas established done and one of these days there will have the chance to us to put them all into effect right I think your second exit light is just as good as the first one thank you very much he knows we are out of time no not just for thesis thanks very much for coming down and answering all these questions and thank you - Norman Campbell of the Toronto telegram that well-known socialist Journal Bob McEwan of weekend magazine until ladies and gentlemen until this time next week it's good night from Ottawa [Music] [Music]