1949-11-16

Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to note for the records of Hansard the achievement announced yesterday of Mrs. Amy Grace Kelsey, of Erickson, British Columbia, in once again winning the world wheat title.
I know all hon. members will be glad that this title has again come to Canada, and some of us will be delighted that it has returned to British Columbia. Mrs. Kelsey, a resident of my riding, deserves special praise, because this is the second occasion on which this great honour has come to her. It is a pleasure for me to record the congratulations of this house to her upon maintaining our pre-eminence in the production of this our Canadian farm crop of first importance.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house, in connection with the matter brought up by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), that in accordance with the wish of the house a picture of the present Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is being hung in our halls today. I might point out that this picture was taken by Karsh, and when he sent it he also presented to the house a new picture of Mr. Churchill, which is also being placed among the others on the sixth floor.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 182, for the relief of John Albert Roberts.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Leslie Ernest Tulett.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Ernest Tonegawa.-Mr. Winkler.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. Higgins:: Has any application been made by Newfoundland for the establishment of a national park?


Mr. Gibson (Hamilton West):: No. There have been preliminary discussions with officials of the provincial government. One area has been suggested as being suitable for a national park; however, no formal application has been received from the province.


DUNDAS, ONT., POST OFFICE  ALTERATIONS
Mr. Lennard:: 1.	Are the alterations for the Dundas, Ontario, post office being done on a cost plus arrangement or by contract?
2.	If by contract, what is the amount of the contract for the completed job?
3.	When will this job be completed?
4.	How much money has been spent to date?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: 1.	By contract.
2.	$36,457 plus additional work amounting to $2,734.
3.	About January 1, 1950.
4.	No payment to date.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


Gordon Francis Higgins: What services of the Department of Agriculture have been made available to Newfoundland?


Mr. McCubbin:: Division of entomology: research and advice on control of insect pests.
Division of plant protection: inspection of import shipments.
Health of animals division: inspection of import shipments and outbreaks of animal contagious diseases.
Plant products division: inspection of interprovincial and import shipments of seed, feed, and fertilizers.
Livestock and poultry division: record of performance inspection of dairy cattle.
Fruit and vegetable division: inspection of interprovincial and import shipments.
Livestock and livestock products division: inspection of interprovincial and import shipments of poultry and eggs.
Grants and subventions: During the period April 1 to September 30, 1949, the sum of $66,591.51 was paid by the dominion government on freight assistance for shipments of feed grain to Newfoundland.
Newfoundland is also entitled to a subvention of $1.25 per ton for all limestone distributed by the province during the current fiscal year.
Miscellaneous: during the past six months, at the request of the Newfoundland government, officers of the dominion Department

Questions
of Agriculture have visited Newfoundland to conduct surveys and give advice on soil surveys, experimental fur farming, growing of cranberries, and the prevalence of plant diseases.
All services given in other provinces are being and will be extended to Newfoundland in so far as they are applicable.
s.s. "lady laurier"


Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport a ship called the Lady Laurier?
2.	If so, when was this ship constructed?
3.	Is it still in continuous service?
4.	When laid up for necessary repairs, what is the name of ship used to replace this ship?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Built in 1902-Paisley, G.B.
3.	Yes.
4.	None.
s.s. "saurel"


Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport a ship called the Saurel?
2.	If so, how many officers and men comprise the crew?
3.	Where is this ship based at present?
4.	Is any change being contemplated in respect to changing the home base of this ship?
5.	Will this ship continue to be based as at present?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	37.
3.	Charlottetown during the season of navigation; North Sydney during the winter months.
4.	No, not at present.
5.	It is planned to return the Saurel to Quebec when sufficient icebreaking service is available for the maritimes.
s.s. "c. D. HOWE"


Mr. Isnor:: 1.	Is the Department of Transport having a ship constructed, called the C. D. Howe?
2.	If so, where will this ship be based?
3.	What is the type of this ship and what is the nature of its work or operations?
4.	How many officers and men will comprise the crew?


Mr. Chevrier:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Quebec.
3.	Twin screw passenger and cargo vessel. This vessel is to be used to deliver material and supplies to the various stations in the eastern Arctic and to supplement the work now done by the N. B. McLean and other vessels chartered in the past to deliver shipments for departments of National Health and

Welfare, Mines and Resources, R.C.M.P. and Transport. All shipments from these various departments are assembled at the marine agency in Quebec. The C. D. Howe, when not occupied on its eastern Arctic patrol, will be used as a stand-by vessel on the Atlantic coast.
4.	The crew will consist of approximately 58 persons.



BAGOTVILLE, QUE., AIRPORT    CONTRACT FOR WORK ON RUNWAYS

Mr. Gagnon:: 1.	Is any expansion work in progress on runways at the Saguenay airport, Bagotville, in the county of Chicoutimi, Quebec?
2.	If so, who is the contractor?
3.	What is the amount of the contract?
4.	Were tenders invited for this work? If so, when?
5.	What are the names of those who tendered and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. Howe:: In so far as Canadian Commercial Corporation is concerned:
1.	Yes.
2.	North Shore Construction Co. Ltd., 307 Castle Building, Montreal, Que.
3.	$206,938.25.
4.	Yes. Tenders closed 4 p.m., E.D.S.T. July 25, 1949.
5.	Provincial Paving Co. Ltd., 416 Jean Talon West, Montreal, P.Q., $206,700; iNorth Shore Construction Co. Ltd., 307 Castle Building, Montreal, P.Q., $206,938.25; Charles Edouard Boivan, Co. Lake St. John, Meta-betchoun, P.Q., $216,970; Arthur Laberge, 369 St. Dominique St., Jonquiere, P.Q., $267,050; J. R. Theberge Ltd., St. Ignace Blvd., Chicoutimi, P.Q., $291,927.50; Saguenay Construction Ltd., Bagotville, P.Q., $349,972.50; Chicoutimi & Saguenay Construction Ltd., 81 Ste. Anne St., Chicoutimi, P.Q., $374,294.50; Jobbing Construction Co. Ltd., Chicoutimi, P.Q., $412,500.
*Having regard to the fact that this contractor had equipment in the immediate vicinity and was in a position to commence work immediately, he was awarded the contract.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


PENSIONS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many approved pension schemes designed to provide pensions at retirement age for employees of business and industry are currently in force in Canada?
2.	How many of these are (a) placed with the government annuities office: (b) placed with private assurance companies?

3.	What is the total number of persons participating in, or covered by, these plans (a) in 1939; (b) in 1947; (c) the most recent figure and the date?



MOTOR COACH INDUSTRIES


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Have any contracts been let by any government departments, government agencies or crown corporations to (a) Motor Coach Industries Limited of Winnipeg; and/or (b) Western Auto and Truck Body Works Limited, of Winnipeg, since January 1, 1947?
2.	If so, by what departments, agencies or corporations and what is the nature and value of such contracts?
3.	Have any contracts let to either of the above firms been cancelled? If so, for what reason?



MOTION FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of all letters and memoranda exchanged between the Minister of Justice and the commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act, since January 1, 1946, regarding changes in the Combines Investigation Act and/or in the administration and/or enforcement thereof, suggested in any letter or other communication received by any minister of the government, or by the said commissioner or his deputies, from any labour or farm organization, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Manufacturers1 Association, or any flour milling company, or from any persons on behalf of such organizations or companies, dated at any time since January 1, 1946.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secrelary of State for
External Affairs) moved:
That votes Nos. 51 to 70 inclusive, of the main estimates 1949-50, and Nos. 766 to 779 inclusive, of the further supplementary estimates 1949-50, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. T. L. Church (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to object to the estimates of the Department of External Affairs being referred to a standing committee on motion of the government. I do so because I think the house and the country are entitled to know what is taking place.
I noticed that when the minister's deputy, Mr. Arnold Heeney, was in the city last Monday he made an address, as did the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) last spring, to the effect that we were depending for defence and security on the United Nations as the cornerstone. In view of the estimates being referred to a standing committee, I think it is the function and duty of the government to let 45781-116
External Affairs
the people of the country know what the situation is. In two long wars we found that we had to look for our defence and security to our own dominions and crown colonies and the mother country. Now you are seeking to change all that by referring the estimates to a committee. I am opposed to such action. I think if some of these delegates came home from New York and the United Nations we would have some chance for peace. We had to carry on all alone for two and a half years in both world wars, and we should look first to the dominion and the mother country for our security and defence.
The United States has a different economy. Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Sir John A. Macdonald held that view. They believed we should look east and west, rather than north and south, that we should look to the mother country. We went into two great world wars. It is the function and the duty of the minister to tell us this morning what security we have in the face of the coming conflict-because one is coming; there is no doubt about that.
I have here a picture of the millions of slaves in western Europe today. It is taken from Everybody's Weekly, the issue of October 29. There are pictures of the slaves who are being deported to Russia to work in the mines, in camps, in soviet prisons, and so on. It may please some people to refer these estimates to a committee, but I am opposed to that policy because the committee will do nothing about them. They will learn nothing, and the proceedings will be held in secret. A great man, Mr. Poke, is the editor of Everybody's Weekly. There are pictures in it of the present slave camps with millions of prisoners. This may not be pleasant for a great many of our new members. They are entitled to something better than the referring of these estimates to a committee. If you do that you will postpone dealing with the question of our future security. I believe our defence should start where it was after two and a half years of war when we stood alone; it should start with the mother country and the dominions. In the magazine to which I have referred there is a list of countries in which there are slave camps, indicating that they are all over western Europe.
I am opposed to the present policy, for the reasons I have given. I believe the minister should give details of our defence policy. It is the duty of the government to let the country know, in the event of a third war taking place. We had a great man here the other day, Lord Wavell, and he expressed concern about Germany. We are not secure there; we all know that. Instead of carrying on and capturing Berlin, the United States

External Affairs
prevented our allies from doing that at a time when we could have made ourselves secure. Germany is a hostile nation. I hope the minister will tell us where the trouble lies. Russia lost twelve million men in the last war, and Russia and her satellites also fear Germany.
I regret to have to take this stand, but I repeat that our defence and security should start with the mother country and the dominions. They gave us security in two long wars. If the motion is automatically adopted the House of Commons will have heard the last word in this session about foreign affairs, defence and security. Besides, some of the items to be referred to the committee deal with local matters, such as passports, and so on.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the motion, I should like to say in the first place how greatly I welcome the reference of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the standing committee where in the past such helpful and constructive consideration has been given to them, and to the work of the department. I am also glad to have the opportunity to give the house a general review of world affairs as seen by my department, a review which I hope will be of some interest and possibly of some value to the hon. member (Mr. Church) who has just spoken. I gather he thinks that should be done on this motion.
I am glad of the opportunity for two main reasons. The first is that the discussion will enable the government to secure the advice of members of all parties in the house on the important international questions and problems confronting our country at this time. I know I speak for all my colleagues in the government in saying we will welcome such advice because we know, from the record of the house in matters concerning external affairs, that it will not only be informed but also constructive and helpful.
The second reason why I welcome this discussion is that it finds me where I wish I could have been throughout the whole session, in my seat in the house. I had hoped when I was appointed head of the Canadian delegation to the United Nations assembly- a normal appointment for a person holding my office-that I could combine that post with fairly regular attendance in the house at least for a part of every week. But to the duties of chairman of the Canadian delegation have been added, through no fault of my own, those of chairman of the political committee of the assembly. These duties have meant that I have been absent from the house almost
continuously since its opening. I feel sure, however, that hon. members will agree that Canadians must be prepared to accept their full share of the burden of helping to make the United Nations work as best it can under the present difficult conditions. For this reason, just as I think Canada could not justifiably refuse membership on the economic and social council to which we have been elected, we could not appropriately refuse to accept, on behalf of the chairman of its delegation, the chairmanship of the political committee of the assembly. Normally, of course, the meetings of the United Nations assembly do not coincide with the sessions of this house, so that no problem of being in two places at one time arises. The situation in this regard this year is exceptional, and I certainly hope it will remain exceptional.
I can assure you that the chairmanship of the political committee of the United Nations assembly is not an office that one would seek, or one to be relished, charged as the committee is with preparing for the consideration of the plenary sessions of the assembly many of the most difficult and controversial problems coming before it. The chairmen of assembly committees of the United Nations, especially of the political committee, I think, are not always given as much courtesy, consideration and authority as you, Mr. Speaker, enjoy in this house. The violence of the general discussions and the heated, complicated arguments on procedural questions are things which, happily, are not often encountered here.
Today I hope to give a review of some aspects of the international situation as I see them. I know that in a review of this kind, though I am afraid it may be longer than it should be, there will be omissions; but if I should leave out important matters, or if questions occur to hon. members during my remarks, I hope I may have an opportunity to deal with them in winding up this discussion.
In the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, I should like to turn to certain international economic matters which I shall touch upon very briefly only in their political implications and aspects. It would not be appropriate for me to touch upon them in any other way.
In April, 1948, when the last comprehensive survey of world affairs was given in this house, the Marshall plan had just been accepted in principle by the United States congress and was beginning to be put into effect. Over the next twelve months the world made rapid progress. Production climbed; prices levelled off, and inflation was brought largely under control. Everywhere overseas the financial balance was being

restored, though it proved to be rather precarious. Meanwhile United States prosperity and United States imports continued to climb.
Canada, of course, is always influenced by what happens abroad, and naturally we shared in the general revival, to which I think our own policies made a modest contribution. Our reserves of gold and United States dollars were at a very low ebb, as hon. members know, at the beginning of 1948; but during that year the tide turned, and by the end of the year our reserves were approximately twice as high as they had been at the beginning. Therefore our emergency import restrictions, introduced in November, 1947, could be slightly relaxed. During the same period we began to benefit from the new tariff rates agreed to at Geneva. These came into force on January 1, 1948, and our exports to the United States rose to new heights.
Unfortunately the financial balance overseas proved to be pretty precarious, gs I have suggested; and it was upset. In April of this year the trading position of the sterling area began to get worse for a variety of reasons which I need not go into here, though one of them was the generally disturbed international political situation. The central reserves of gold and dollars in London began to drop sharply, and by the end of June the losses in such reserves had become very serious. So three international conferences were called in quick succession to check the recession and to make advances toward recovery and prosperity.
Canada was invited to all three conferences, the only country to attend them all apart from the United Kingdom, which of course was at the very centre of the crisis. My colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) was at all these conferences. First was the preliminary tripartite discussions in London during July between the United Kingdom, the United States and ourselves; second was the conference of commonwealth finance ministers held in London later in the same month, and third was the tripartite conference held in Washington in September. The United Kingdom crisis was, of course, financial, and has been described as the sterling crisis or the sterling-dollar crisis, although it had very grave international political and economic implications. The commonwealth countries other than Canada found themselves so short of dollars that they felt they had to cut down further their imports from Canada and the United States. At the London commonwealth meeting late in July they agreed to aim at a cut of 25 per cent, which came on top of substantial reductions previously made. There was a 45781-116J
External Affairs
real danger that the commonwealth countries other than Canada might end up by virtually cutting off their trade with North America; and if this had happened, or if it were to happen now, then the trading world would be split in two economically and commercially. That in its turn-and this is what I wish to emphasize as Secretary of State for External Affairs-would obviously entail severe political strain. So I feel sure the three countries concerned will do everything possible in their trade and financial policies to avoid such strain. No one can gain from it except those who wish to break up the unity and stability of the whole democratic world.
If a definite split ever took place-and I am not suggesting for a moment that it will take place-it would be disastrous for Canada and for all that we have worked for since the war. We depend on trade with the sterling as well as the dollar area. Wide sections of this country have been largely developed to serve the United Kingdom market, and those sections of Canada would have great difficulty in finding another outlet for many of their products. They would face grave difficulties if the sterling area and the dollar area were cut off from each other. Equally disastrous would be the results in the field of defence. The North Atlantic treaty would be quickly undermined if the United States and the United Kingdom were steering divergent economic courses, each pulling a large part of the trading world with it.
Possibly the most important achievement of the tripartite conference in Washington, it seems to me, was the united front presented to these problems by the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada. The crisis was not regarded as a United Kingdom crisis or a sterling area crisis; it was regarded as a common crisis in which all three countries were concerned and which could be solved only by common action. There were no recriminations. We worked together as a team and agreed on the general direction in which we should all move.
So much, then, Mr. Speaker, for international economic questions at this time. Next, if I may, I should like to give a review of some of the areas of the world as far as our international relations with those areas are concerned; a review of the policies of some countries as far as they affect our own country; and in these days most of them do affect our country.
It is proper, I think, that I should first turn to our greatly valued association, as close and friendly as ever, with the nations of our commonwealth. In an uneasy and uncertain

External Affairs
world that association remains firm and enduring, a model for free states to follow. Economic and financial difficulties on which I have touched, which at times threaten-but only threaten-to divide us are the only shadows over the commonwealth relationship at this time. During the last two months we have had the pleasure of welcoming in Ottawa the Prime Minister of India, the foreign ministers of Great Britain and Pakistan, and the secretary of state for commonwealth relations in the United Kingdom. It has been a great honour for us to have had with us Pandit Nehru, Mr. Bevin, Sir Mohammed Zafrullah Khan, and Mr. Noel-Baker. In a little more than a year there have been three important meetings of the commonwealth ministers and two of the commonwealth prime ministers, one in October, 1948, and in April of this year. There has been the one meeting of commonwealth finance ministers which I have already mentioned. At those meetings, the three new independent member nations of the commonwealth, India, Pakistan and Ceylon have been represented for the first time, an event of historical importance not only for the commonwealth but for the world.
The meeting of prime ministers this April was solely concerned with the important constitutional issues arising from India's decision to adopt a republican form of constitution, and its desire to continue membership in the commonwealth. These two issues were important and were difficult. But I feel sure all members of this house and the great majority of the Canadian people will be glad to learn they were satisfactorily resolved in London by the adoption of that kind of compromise which, on more than one occasion, has not only prevented the commonwealth from dissolving but has actually strengthened it. I hope that this will prove to be true in this case also.
In the new commonwealth those of us who wish to retain allegiance to His Majesty can do so with such allegiance unimpaired. At the same time it has proved possible for a republic to remain within the group by the acceptance of the King as the symbol of the free association of the members of our commonwealth of nations, and as such the head of the commonwealth. In this connection, possibly it would not be inappropriate to refer to a former member of the commonwealth which has adopted the republican form of government and which has followed a course opposite to that chosen by India. I refer, of course, to Ireland, a country which gave the ultimate proof of the independence and freedom which exists in the commonwealth by exercising its right to leave it.

Inasmuch as the members of the commonwealth recognize the full sovereignty of each other and the authority of each to conduct its policy in both its domestic and external affairs in the manner of any other foreign state, no member of the commonwealth would, I think, seek to criticize in any way the action taken by the government of the republic of Ireland. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think most Canadians were disappointed at the decision that the Irish government found it necessary to take to break those special formal ties which Ireland had with Canada and with the other members of the commonwealth. There is, of course, no need for us to assure the Irish people of the continuing warmth of the friendship the Canadian people have for them or to assure the Irish government of the desire of the government of Canada to co-operate with it in any useful manner.
The changes that have now taken place within the commonwealth naturally give rise to questions concerning their effect on its future. To the citizens of other countries, Mr. Speaker, it must often seem difficult to appreciate the organization or what might more accurately be called the lack of formal organization of the commonwealth. Certainly, the commonwealth of today is vastly different from the British empire of not so many years ago. I believe most people feel the difference is an improvement. Political and economic factors have produced many changes which, in my own opinion, have not only been to the advantage of the individual members but of the commonwealth as a whole. For example, no longer can there be any suggestion that the public opinion of the vast subcontinent of India is denied full expression in our commonwealth. Now, each Asian member of the commonwealth, and there are three, speaks through its own independent, democratically chosen government. In this way alone, not only has the composition of the commonwealth changed, but so has the nature, if you will, of its institutions, and the very nature of its being in a sense. But the change has provided a bridge between the east and the west and has given us an opportunity of being of great service to the world.
Once again, the commonwealth has proven its ability to adapt itself to these changing conditions, something I venture to think- there may be disagreement over this-it could not have done if it had, in earlier times, decided to organize its activities in a fixed, formal and centralized manner.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if I may leave the commonwealth and say a word or two about our relations with the United States.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Would the minister allow just one question? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been referring to the commonwealth of nations, and I noticed the same expression was used when Premier Nehru was here. Under the Statute of Westminster the nations within the British family of nations are known as the British commonwealth of nations. Has that name been changed as a result of India and Pakistan finding themselves in their peculiar position?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there has been any change by formal legislative enactment in any part of the commonwealth. If the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has looked, and I am sure he has, at the communique which was issued from the conference last April, he will find in that communique a reference to both the British commonwealth of nations and the commonwealth of nations.


John George Diefenbaker: I noticed that the reference had been only to the commonwealth of nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Up to now, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is true I have been referring to the commonwealth of nations.
In so far as our relations with the United States are concerned, it is, of course, Mr. Speaker, obvious that two great and active nations like Canada and the United States cannot live together without being confronted each year with new problems in their relationship. The way and the spirit in which we set about the solution of our mutual problems must continue to stand as an example of the way in which relations should be conducted between free states. That example would be spoiled if we were to admit failure to find mutually acceptable solutions to our own problems. To avoid such failure, careful and constant attention, respect, and informed understanding on both sides are necessary. Relations between states, like marriages and friendships, do not thrive on neglect.
Canada and the United States, I suggest, cannot take their relations with each other too much for granted. Both must continue to direct intelligence and good will towards the solution of any problem. We in Canada must not, I think, be oversensitive in our relations with the United States. We must also recognize her great preponderance of responsibilities and her tremendous exertion as the leader of the western democratic powers in a struggle against forces which, if they prevailed, would end the Canadian as well as the American free way of life. The United States, on its part, must I think recognize
External Affairs
that we wish to play our own part in international development, make our own contribution, and that we can do this effectively as a co-operating partner but not as a camp follower.
I mention these principles, Mr. Speaker, not because they are being ignored but because if we did not keep them in mind they might be ignored. One example of a difficult Canadian-United States question which can only be solved in a co-operative way is the St. Lawrence seaway and power project. It has been made abundantly clear that the two countries are able through their joint efforts to undertake this vast international project on their common frontier. Because of recent work the project itself will be enabled to get under way quickly as soon as the necessary legislative approval has been secured. I am sure all of us hope that the congress in Washington will be in a position to deal with it shortly. Viewed against the background of the present international situation, the St. Lawrence seaway and power project assumes increasing importance. It would have great defensive, strategic implications and would simplify the logistical problem of supplying Europe with arms and food. By removing any doubts anyone might still have as to the economic feasibility of the Labrador iron ore development, the seaway project would ensure the peaceful development of a dependable source of iron ore, capable of rapid expansion in time of war or emergency. It would thus fulfil one of the main requirements of continental defence. That is why I venture to express the hope that the necessary legislative and congressional action on this matter can be taken without much further delay.
Another example of United States-Cana-dian relations is the record of the international joint commission which continues its long-established record of dealing successfully with boundary water questions. There is no doubt that all the projects which the joint commission is now considering, and it is considering several, when carried out will add greatly to our economic strength.
Among the bilateral air agreements Canada signed last year was one with the United States which gave us a number of rights which we have been seeking for some time. In return-and this seems at times to be forgotten by some of our friends below the border-Canada granted such reciprocal concessions as full traffic rights at Gander airport in Newfoundland, an important international stage post taken over by Canada, along with other aviation facilities, when Newfoundland and Canada became one. The grant to Canada of one of the new routes, the route between Montreal and New York,

External Affairs
was delayed by certain legal proceedings in the United States. It is because of these unresolved difficulties that we have not granted permanent licences to United States carriers to exercise certain traffic rights in Newfoundland but have issued only temporary permits. It will be appreciated of course that temporary arrangements of this nature cannot be continued indefinitely. The United States government has been co-operating to the best of its ability to help bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion, and we hope and expect that the treaty may shortly become fully effective on both sides.
I want to turn now for a moment to another specific problem in our relations with the United States. Negotiations with the government of that country have been in progress for some time regarding the rights and privileges at present enjoyed by United States forces in Newfoundland, a matter which has attained a considerable amount of public attention in this country. The Canadian government does not of course for one moment challenge the rights established with respect to areas in Newfoundland leased to the United States under the bases agreement of 1941, but it considers that they should be brought more closely into line with the principles enunciated by Mr. King and President Truman in their joint declaration of February 12, 1947. This calls for co-operative arrangements to be made, and I quote from it, "without impairment of the control of either country over all activities in its territory". I need not say any more on this subject at this time. I am confident that a way will shortly be found to reconcile United States treaty rights, and strategic requirements which we understand, with Canada's real concern about jurisdiction exercised by even the most friendly country over civilian and military activities on Canadian soil.
Recently, Mr. Speaker, there have also been some difficulties over that unguarded boundary which is the delight of every after-dinner speaker on Canadian-United States relations. Last year our joint border was crossed by new record crowds of United States tourists, and many Canadians went to the United States though the number was restricted by foreign exchange conditions. A few Canadians, however, did not manage to get across. We can understand, Mr. Speaker, our neighbour's legitimate desire to strengthen its border regulations in order to hinder the tourist and convention activities of communist agents. We accept of course its complete right to admit or refuse to admit persons into its country. That is a right which we ourselves maintain. But we consider it unfortunate when innocent citizens are inconvenienced
and embarrassed by security delays, and when others are prevented from visiting the United States because of alleged activities which could, even if true, hardly constitute a threat to the security of that great and powerful state. We are at present discussing this whole question on a very friendly basis, as we always do, with the competent United States officials and we hope soon to arrange a solution for a problem which has understandably aroused anxiety in this country, lest it cast a shadow, even a small one, over the easy and friendly intercourse between our two peoples.
Our relations with the United States are more complex and continuous than with any other nation in the world, both between governments and between private organizations and individuals in our two countries. All of us in Canada of course attach enormous importance to these relations. It is our great good fortune that the power and influence of the United States is wielded by a friendly and peaceful people through a friendly and peaceful government of their choosing. In a world where some states stand in daily fear of a great neighbour, we appreciate the fact that our border marches with that of a powerful state that shares our ideals of freedom and our abhorrence of war, and that conducts its relations with smaller states on a basis of friendly understanding. Conversely, and I hope I will not be thought immodest in saying this, we consider it is the good fortune of the United States to have in us a neighbour which, though much less powerful, has shown itself competent in the management of its own affairs, united in the face of external danger, and strong in the resources and the will necessary to meet danger when it arises. We share a common political background and our social and ethical ideals spring from similar origins. There is therefore a solid basis for the co-operative effort which characterizes our relations and enriches the life we lead together on this continent.
May I say just a word about our relations with Latin America. Since the exchange of diplomatic missions with several of these Latin American republics and also through our increasingly friendly contacts with their representatives at United Nations meetings, there has been a welcome growth in our knowledge of each other's affairs. Broadly speaking, we have found, as we have come to know each other better, that we have a similar point of view on most, if not all, important international questions and a common desire to promote the security and welfare of our peoples. The cordial nature of our relations with the twenty Latin American republics has been given tangible expression in a variety of ways. In the face of present world economic difficulties, there

has been since 1939 a tenfold increase in the total value of our trade with the nations of this area of the world. Not only do we continue to export to Latin America commodities such as wheat and newsprint which have always been of importance to our foreign trade in that part of the world, but we have extended the list to include other items such as, for example, ships and machinery. We have also co-operated on matters of mutual interest and concern in the United Nations and its specialized agencies.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, at the current meeting of the general assembly we were associated with Bolivia and the United States in presenting a resolution concerning human rights in the Balkan countries. In addition, we have continued to participate in the work of certain inter-American organizations dealing with technical matters which are of interest to us. The government-and I am sure all hon. members-feel that whatever our formal relationship may be with any particular inter-American agency we should broaden and deepen our association with the Latin republics of this hemisphere, and that such a process will be of great material advantage to our economic and political development.
If I may, I should like to take a long jump across the Pacific and say a few words about the situation in the Far East. Because of the historical and continuing intermingling of the North American and western European societies there has been a natural tendency for Canada to be particularly preoccupied with finding solutions to the critical economic, political and security problems with which the destruction of the second world war confronted the European and north Atlantic communities. We have made some progress in dealing with these problems. Meanwhile, on the other side of our country scant progress has been made in coping with the great postwar problems of the Pacific area.
Failure to reach an agreement on procedure for drawing up the Japanese peace treaty is merely one indication of the underlying tensions in East Asia today. Unloosed amid the social and political turmoil and economic dislocation attending the collapse of Japanese power on the continent of Asia, communist forces have overrun virtually all of northeast Asia, that part nearest to Canada. They menace now the United Nations sponsored government in south Korea. They have seized the greater part of China. Farther to the south in the countries of southeast Asia the situation is even more confused. There the communists have tried to ride to power on the nationalist movements which have been struggling for independence from
External Affairs
colonial powers, all of which have been prepared in varying degree to assist the indigenous populations to secure that independence. Unless the great political problems of this area are resolved there can be no real peace and stability in Asia. Without such stability there can be no economic reconstruction and development, to give the 750 million people of this area a better way of living, which would contribute so largely to an expansion of international commerce and the preservation of world peace.
Canada, a country which borders on the Pacific ocean, would be foolish to try to isolate itself from the political and economic problems of Asia. That continent is now close to us. The vast expanses of the Pacific have shrunk as the result of air transport. You can now travel from Vancouver to Tokyo and Hong Kong by air in less time than it takes to travel from Vancouver to Ottawa by rail. Edmonton and Vancouver now rival San Francisco as North American air gateways to Asia. In fact in this air age the Far East is neither far nor east. Therefore Canadians must learn to look, as they are of course learning to look, northwest to Asia. I think that the economic development in western Canada would certainly be greatly stimulated by the restoration and development of transpacific trade. That trade will increase proportionately with the rise in the standard of living in the countries of the Far East, which cannot take place under disturbed and confused international political conditions.
In the Pacific, then, serious problems continue to exist, and I should like to mention just one or two of them in detail. First, the Japanese peace treaty; a peace treaty with Japan will not of course automatically adjust Japanese relations with its Pacific neighbours. It will, in fact, at the beginning introduce new and uncertain factors into Far Eastern international relations. Nevertheless the absence of such a treaty is one of the causes of uncertainty in the Far East. Much as the United States occupation of Japan has done for that country, I myself am inclined to think that military occupations as a rule quickly reach a point of diminishing returns, and if suitable arrangements can be made should be terminated as quickly as possible.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), then Secretary of State for External Affairs, stated in this house on December 19, 1947, and again on April 29, 1948, the views of the Canadian government in respect of the procedure that should be followed in negotiating a peace treaty with Japan. Our views remain essentially unaltered since that time. The Japanese have to make their peace with the neighbours, the people they wronged and with whom they

External Affairs
will have to live in the future. The Canadian government believes that the settlement with Japan, which must inevitably be of great consequence to all Pacific and Asian nations, should be one that embodies the views of all the countries particularly interested, which includes Canada, and should be the product of the work of a representative conference.
There are of course very great difficulties to be overcome in convening such a conference, and one of the greatest of them is the emergence of a communist government in China and the effect of this on Japan. We also recognize of course the heavy responsibility that the United States bears in this matter. Nevertheless I think there may be greater dangers in an indefinite postponement of this peace conference than in making another effort to push forward with it.
This brings me to the present situation in China, a matter which is of course of very great interest, I am sure, to all hon. members. I do not try to minimize the gravity or the magnitude of the recent events in China. A small revolutionary party there, espousing an alien philosophy, looking to the Soviet union as the author and interpreter of that philosophy and as a guide in international relations, has seized military and governmental power throughout the greater part of China. It has done so, I believe, by riding in on the crest of a wave of a peasant revolt begun more than a hundred years ago in the great Taiping rebellion; by building a tough peasant army during the war of resistance to Japan; by exploiting the failures of the national government and by shrewd political manoeuvring in the Chinese manner. The "Central Government of the People's Republic of China", as it is called, was proclaimed in Peking on October 1, 1949. Other co-operating parties and individuals are represented in that government, but effective control is held by the Chinese communist party. The new regime has invited recognition from foreign governments on a basis of equality, friendship, respect for territorial integrity and withdrawal of recognition from the national government. The Soviet government and its satellites promptly accorded recognition on this basis. No other state has yet done so.
What should be our attitude in the face of these profound changes in China? Well, it is not an easy matter to talk about. One must speak of it with a certain amount of hesitation and with I think reservation, as conditions change, and may change again, quickly in that part of the world. But I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the first thing we should do is to try to understand what has happened. We must understand that today China is under the control of a communist party, which professes Marxist-Leninism as

its social philosophy, and which has patterned its government on that of the new "popular democracies" of eastern Europe. It will set about, I assume, the introduction in China, as soon as it can, of what it will call socialism. This kind of socialism will not be, however, the liberal democratic socialism of western tradition, but the kind called for in communist doctrine.
China, as the greatest eastern country to come under communist control, has become significant as a testing ground for the adaptation of Marxist-Leninist principles to the Asian scene and as a base for further pressures against the rest of Asia. Of course we in Canada reject completely the Marxist-Leninist principles espoused by the Chinese communists, but we cannot reject the fact of China and its 450 million people. For seventy-five years Canadians have been in direct contact with the Chinese people. We respect their ancient and humanitarian culture. We admire the cheerful industry of the Chinese peasant. We accept the Chinese as good neighbours across the Pacific with whom we would live on terms of friendship and respect. We are interested in the welfare of the Chinese people as an end in itself and not as a means to somebody else's end. We know that the problems and sorrows of China cannot be confined within the borders of that ancient land.
There is also the continuing friendship by the people of Canada for the people of China which has been expressed in a variety of ways for so many years. We have been asked to recognize the new communist government in Peking which does in fact control a large part of that country. Recognition, of course, does not imply or signify moral approval, it is simply an acknowledgment of a state of affairs that exists. If the fact of communist control of China is demonstrated and an independent-I stress the word "independent"- Chinese government, able to discharge its international obligations, is established there, which is accepted by the Chinese people, then in due course and after consultation with other friendly governments-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: May I ask
the hon. gentleman a question?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Apparently the minister, who has the floor, does not wish that questions should be asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to answer questions if they can be asked at the end of any particular section and if they bear on that

particular section. It is a little difficult when I am asked a question in the middle of a paragraph or sentence.


William Joseph Browne: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was saying that in the face of circumstances and the position as I tried to outline it, we will in due course and after consultation with other friendly governments have to recognize the facts which confront us. If we indicate, in the future, recognition of the Chinese government, that will not indicate approval of communism in China any more than our recognition of the communist states of eastern Europe indicated approval of their form of government. It should, however, safeguard the maintenance of contact between the Canadian and Chinese people, of which I have spoken already.
I think it would be inappropriate to leave this subject without saying something about the national government of China, sometimes called the nationalist government-although I hope that all Chinese governments will continue to be nationalist in the broadest and best sense of that word. It is a fact of political life, either domestic or international, that the loser is often made the scapegoat. Whatever the shortcomings of the national government of China may have been, whatever were the inadequacies of individual officials to shoulder the grave burdens, and they were grave, that were thrust upon them, we would be wanting in common decency if we did not acknowledge that that government stood strongly by us as allies in the last war and that they have professed and proclaimed the ideals of our own democratic way of life.
If I may I should like to come back across the Pacific in this rather mixed-up geographical tour and say a few words about the situation in Europe. During the past few months we have been delighted to welcome to this country the foreign ministers of Great Britain and of three continental powers. The visits of Mr. Bevin, Mr. van Zeeland of Belgium, Mr. Schuman of France and Count Sforza of Italy have been in some degree a measure of the greater external responsibilities of this country. They also gave us a pleasant opportunity to introduce these distinguished guests to at least a part of Canada and to allow them to renew their acquaintance with our people.
It seems to me that there are two potent forces at work in Europe in which we in this country are or should be profoundly interested. The first is the tremendous thrust in every country in Europe toward economic revival and social betterment of every kind, 45781-117
External Affairs
and the second is the equally compelling drive by Soviet Russia to assert its supremacy or potential domination.
We welcome for our own sake as much as for any other reason the efforts of the people of the countries of Europe to rebuild, not only their homes and their cities but their businesses, their commercial and industrial contacts abroad, their welfare, their self respect and their pride. Our Canadian way of life is so closely linked to the great civilization of western Europe that any change in this area, whether for better or for worse, cannot help but affect us.
Therefore we are greatly encouraged by the fact that in recent months there have been changes for the better. The economic union of Belgium, Luxembourg and The Netherlands is making steady progress and is a forceful example for the rest of the world. France and Italy have put away old grievances and have negotiated a trade treaty which it is intended in due course will lead to a customs union between those two great countries. There has also been a fuller realization of the necessity for greater economic co-operation among members of the OEEC, the organization for european economic co-operation. The signatories to the treaty of Brussels in March, 1948 have moved rapidly toward the co-ordination of their political, economic and military plans. Finally, in August of this year the council of Europe met for the first time at Strasbourg and made a good beginning in carrying out a difficult task.
Membership in the council of Europe is open to all democratic European states. If this council is to play its part in the preservation of peace and the advancement of material prosperity in Europe, the admission of German representatives is I think acknowledged as necessary. It only remains to be seen whether the German government can satisfy the people of Europe of its ability to qualify for such membership, to satisfy them that it will cooperate in a democratic and responsible manner and that it will renounce the national aspirations and ideas which in recent years have been in conflict with the interests of Europe, and for that matter with the interests of the world as a whole.
The outside judges of Germany's fitness to enter European society must be primarily Germany's European neighbours who have suffered so much in the past from German aggression. Nevertheless I think it is clear that before this judgment can be given Germany must have a democratic and responsible government composed of representatives of the German people qualified to speak for them in the council of Europe. The Canadian

External Affairs
government welcomes the establishment of a democratic federal republic of Germany whose mandate we hope will soon run over a united Germany. The participation of such a democratic republic in the European community I think is fundamental to the rehabilitation of that community.
In both France and Italy the large communist parties have suffered very serious setbacks in recent months in political prestige. Among the workers the use of the strike as primarily a political weapon for the furtherance of soviet aims was demonstrated in the attempt a year ago to bring down the French government in Paris. The strikes failed, as did similar strikes attempting to upset the government of Italy.
In Finland the communists have also attempted to use strikes as a weapon to bring down the Finnish government, but that government has refused to be provoked or intimidated. The result was a complete defeat of the communists after a great deal of economic damage had been done to the country. We can only admire and respect the firm equanimity with which the government and the people of Finland have dealt with this threat to their institutions.
In Norway the communists have recently received a severe defeat in the elections of that country. In Greece conciliation with its northern neighbours has so far failed. Having sat in on a conciliation group of four for twenty-six meetings recently at Lake Success, I have some understanding of the reasons why that conciliation of Greece with its northern neighbours has failed and I can assure the house that it was not due to the Greek government or its representatives at the United Nations. Nevertheless, in spite of that failure, the national army of Greece has, in a period far shorter than we would have expected even a few months ago, driven out the guerrilla bands and brought a new instalment of peace to that unhappy land so long split by civil strife. We sincerely hope that this improvement in the situation will make possible the strengthening of stable and progressive democracy in Greece, and the improvement of economic conditions there.
The mere recital of these events indicates,
I think, that the nations of western Europe are exerting good will and energy in their own reconstruction and in co-operative relations with their neighbours. But they are democracies in which the conditions of freedom must be respected. Each of them has its own traditional methods of thought, and its own established way of life. Therefore, in the arduous search for a basis of international agreement on economic, political and strategic European problems, they must, I assume,

remain free to put forward their own claims and free to accept the necessary compromises. Democracy in international as in national affairs is government by agreement, not by verdict, and agreement between nations, however well disposed towards one another, must always take time. I venture to suggest therefore that we should not be unduly impatient if they have not made greater progress towards the consolidation of Europe than has in fact been the case in the last year.
There are still many obstacles in the way of further progress towards western European unity. Fear and uncertainty are probably the most conspicuous, fear of war and uncertainty about the economic future. These disintegrating elements lie at the root of most of the conflicts and stubborn differences of policy that retard progress towards European unity, but nevertheless a very real advance has been made in that direction. There is another difficulty which is retarding the essential advance towards European unity. When Prime Minister Nehru spoke in New York in October last on the causes of war he named as one of these the desire of one nation to dominate another. Nowhere are his words more clearly to be tested and proven than in Europe itself. For some time now it has been quite obvious that Soviet Russia is inflexibly set upon imposing its will by force and fear upon a wider and wider area totally regardless of the sovereign rights, the religious traditions or the social organization of the peoples involved. This unswerving purpose poisons and distorts the aspirations of those who seek for a peaceful way of life everywhere.
In Yugoslavia, for instance, it has been made quite clear by recent exchanges of notes between that government and the government of the U.S.S.R. that Russia is exerting every effort, short of actual war, to bring the government of Yugoslavia to heel, and to extract from it the kind of unquestioning and slavish obedience that the Kremlin demands. In Bulgaria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia and in Poland, where a Russian marshal has recently been made minister of national defence, communist pressure to liquidate every element of national independence and every trace of opinion or feeling which is not abjectly subordinate to Soviet Russia has, during recent months, been much accelerated.
Finally in the Russian zone of Germany the Soviet military authority in October last brought into being by a sort of ukase a state and government whose only claim to popular support was the carefully managed election of last May when, however, the communists, in spite of careful management,

did not do very well. The constitution of this puppet regime was submitted for ratification not to the German people but to the Soviet government.
From all this the only conclusion we can draw is that the purpose of Soviet Russia is to expand its power by increasing the number of Soviet republics, and this evolution of policy since the days of Yalta now seems quite clear. At the Yalta conference Russia insisted merely that, to use the words of the declaration, "friendly governments" should be established on her frontiers. Two years later, when the new democracies were renamed peoples' democracies, all noncommunist parties were rooted out or placed under communist leaders.
In the latest phase of this development the emphasis has now changed from the creation of "socialist" or communist regimes, in which there may still linger tendencies to independent or nationalist thought, to complete identification of these states with the Soviet union. As a Moscow journal has recently pointed out, and it is a significant quotation:
"Deep devotion to the cause of socialism and communism is inseparable from an equally profound devotion to the Soviet union."
These systematic measures for installing completely servile governments in the satellite states have been accompanied by less tangible but an insidious and menacing trespass on the sanctity of human rights. A regular feature of Russian totalitarianism is the purge, collective and individual, by which society is reminded of the ruthlessness and power of its government from which there is no appeal. Innocent and guilty alike live in fear of the informer, of the knock on the door in the small hours, of the sudden unexplained accusation of some alleged political crime.
Then there is another stage in the subjugation of states by soviet communism. Not only must their party rulers, their constitution and their legislation conform to the ways of Moscow, but even the minds and thoughts and actions of their individual citizens, their humble men and women, must be harshly disciplined into the narrow groove from which no deviation is permitted.
As one of their spokesmen has warned:
"Anyone who has deviated, however slightly, from Marxism-Leninism is bound to be dragged into the capitalist camp."
This camp of course is the hellfire of communist theology.
I do not believe that in the long run this dark practice of government through tyranny and ignorance can prevail even within the shadow of the iron curtain. I am confident
External Affairs
that the resources of the human spirit, which for a thousand years have made western and eastern Europe the fountainhead of light and progress, are strong enough to withstand this seige. In one after another of the intellectual and cultural centres of Europe, the light of freedom has temporarily disappeared, and now it shows only in the western lands which are beyond the reach of the Russian soldier. But even though we cannot see it I know that that light still burns, and that eventually it will help lift the darkness that now surrounds it.
May I now turn for a moment or two, Mr. Speaker, to a subject which has been of very immediate interest to me in recent weeks; that is, the United Nations. If we take a round view of the United Nations I think there is reason to believe that it has been strengthened rather than weakened during the past year; and in spite of some discouragements and difficulties my experience with this United Nations assembly confirms me in that view. There is no need for me to point out here that it has failed to solve all major problems that confront us. It has not healed the breach between east and west. It has not produced a solution for the control of atomic energy, nor an agreed plan for disarmament. Because it has not provided us with world wide security we have had to have recourse to supplementary and, if you like, "second best" arrangements, such as the North Atlantic treaty. Nevertheless the United Nations has important accomplishments to its credit in political, economic and social matters.
These, I think, have at least helped to reduce international tension. I think we ought not to exaggerate what has been accomplished, and we must look squarely at the problems that remain to be faced; nevertheless I think we should recognize what has been achieved because it is on this that we must build, and we must go on building.
First let us examine the successes the United Nations has had in the political field. I think we can look back with some pride upon the accomplishments of the security council during the two years Canada has been a member of that council, because Canada has made a very respectable contribution to those accomplishments. The work of the security council of course has been uneven and imperfect. No one knows that better than I; but it has I think prevented serious disorders in many places from spreading into wars which could have involved the whole world. Furthermore, and this is something that should be understood if we are trying to assess the value of the security council, the responsibility for dealing with these situations has fallen upon it during three

External Affairs
most difficult and dangerous years, when the problems of the world have been complicated by the unrest which always follows in the wake of a major war.
I should like to mention just three of those achievements. The first was Kashmir, where the situation might very well have exploded into tragic events, but where at least it has been contained. The United Nations commission is on the spot helping bring about a peaceful solution. Then Palestine, where of course the United Nations was not able to prevent an unhappy conflict, but where I think the United Nations actually did limit that conflict and help prevent it from spreading over a much wider area. The United Nations is still labouring there to bring about a final solution, I think with great hope of success. Even more important was the success of the security council in the Indonesian matter, a particularly difficult and complicated problem which at one time seemed as though it could not be solved by international action. In this case I think we have some reason to be proud in Canada. To a very considerable extent it was as the result of a Canadian resolution, which was attacked from both sides, that the machinery finally was set up by the security council which now, happily, in a conference at The Hague has brought about a peaceful and satisfactory solution, one which I think will stick, in respect of this complicated and dangerous Indonesian problem.
Though I have been talking about political matters, partly because we have been on the security council for the last two years, I do not want to overlook the economic and social achievements of the United Nations. We shall be more concerned with the economic and social side for the next three years, because we have now been elected to the economic and social council. I hope that during our term of service on that council we may play a respectable part in furthering the activities of the United Nations in that field. In the long run, of course, international political activity in maintaining peaceful conditions and removing causes of war will not succeed unless it can be founded on good economic and social conditions. That is where, we can make a contribution in the economic and social council.
So we are glad to note that the post-war specialized agencies of the United Nations- in none of which the U.S.S.R., that apostle of international co-operation, participates-are developing their activities along highly constructive lines. A very important development took place a few weeks ago in the present assembly when it adopted a resolution supporting a program of technical assistance in the economic development of under-

developed countries. This action grew out of what is called point four of Mr. Truman's statement to congress nearly a year ago. A sound scheme of this kind appears to us to be an effective method of helping the less fortunate peoples of the world to help themselves. It is, I think, of particular importance at a time when the peoples of Asia and Africa are stirring and should be encouraged to help themselves along the lines of sound economic development. It is also very important, I think, that the initiative shown by the United States in this matter, followed by support from so many governments, has been taken in and through the United Nations.
As one of the countries of the world with highly developed technical skill and facilities for training technicians, I believe we in Canada should play our part in this development. It is a long-range investment which may turn out to be very valuable to us.
However, if the United Nations has important accomplishments to its credit, it has, as I have said-for reasons I need not go into now but which I think are familiar to all hon. members of this house-been unable to solve the paramount question of collective security. So we have had to fall back on the North Atlantic treaty, and I should like to say a few words about that.
It was the hope of the western democratic powers that such a treaty would not be necessary, but it turned out to be necessary and I believe that in the future the signing of that treaty-which does not by-pass the United Nations or evade the spirit of the charter- will turn out to be the cornerstone in the structure of general collective security we are still trying to erect.
In meeting the obvious aggressive intentions of Soviet Russia, the western world up to the present time has been faced with two difficulties. In the first place there was the difficulty created by the failure of the U.S.S.R. to disarm after the war, which put the forces of that country proportionately in a so much stronger position than those of the western European democracies which were in particular opposed to it. The second difficulty was the lack of any specific assurance that in the event of aggression the north Atlantic nations would be willing to act together. Well, Mr. Speaker, under the terms of the North Atlantic pact we now have that assurance. Since the signing of that pact we have made encouraging progress in setting up the necessary organizations for the purpose of carrying out its provisions. I believe the various agencies that have been set up as a result of the meetings we have held have been explained to hon. members, and I do not think I need go further into that matter at

this time. We have now, I think we can say, completed the second stage in the organization of our common defence. The first was working out the text of the treaty; the second was the establishment of the working organizations under that text. But I would not wish to leave the impression, of course, that our task under the North Atlantic arrangement is completed. In fact, it has only begun. The nations of the north Atlantic now face the problem of implementing their pledges. The parties to the treaty have undertaken to strengthen their individual and common defence by integrating their defence forces and resources. That means that each nation taking part will be expected to furnish to the common pool that which it can most suitably and effectively contribute. We may then anticipate, I think, some division of responsibility in the military field and some division of labour in production and supply.
In broad terms, we are committed to provide such aid as we can reasonably be expected to contribute, in the form in which we can most effectively furnish it. Until, however, plans are worked out and problems of co-ordination investigated-we will be working out plans before long-it is impossible at this particular moment to predict what our proper contribution will be.
We know, of course, that Canada can produce economically much greater quantities of certain types of arms and ammunition than we need ourselves either in peace or in war. Some of our military requirements, on the other hand, can be produced most economically in other countries. Our ability to purchase in those countries must depend to a very large extent on the willingness and ability of our partners in the north Atlantic defence system to purchase in Canada those items which we are able to produce economically. This principle of integration in military production and supply will, we trust, be considered as an essential governing factor in planning our common defence under the North Atlantic treaty.
As far as Canada is concerned, the implementation of this principle, and with it our ability to make the maximum contribution to the achievement of collective security, will depend to a considerable extent on our financial and exchange position vis-a-vis our neighbour. One way of improving that position.

and it needs improvement-would be for the United States to remove some of the obstacles which now prevent the purchase of military supplies in this country.
There is another aspect of the Atlantic pact, the social and economic, which should not be forgotten in our anxiety over defence considerations. That point was emphasized
External Affairs
as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, in the speech from the throne. The principle is embodied in article 2 of the pact itself which I need not read again at this time.
The North Atlantic council is given powers under the treaty to consider matters concerning the implementation of this article 2. During the course of the discussions which led up to the signing of the treaty, the Canadian delegation consistently urged that that article should be included in the pact. Now that it has been included, we urge that as soon as possible steps should be taken towards its implementation. For it is not only true that the north Atlantic nations cannot be strong militarily unless they are strong economically; it is also true that the whole basis of confidence and mutual trust, the sense of community, on which the alliance is founded would be undermined if the members of the alliance should, as the result of failure to proceed with the implementation of article 2, become divided into two groups with the European members attempting to build up trade among themselves behind a barrier of restrictions against the North American members of the alliance.
We have taken, I think, the first steps towards the widest possible military integration of the north Atlantic community. What we must do now, I suggest, is to take as many steps as possible, as quickly as possible, towards the widest possible economic collaboration between the north Atlantic nations. In article 2 of our pact we have the means for doing that.
Just as Canada and the United States cannot solve their defence problems in isolation from the United Kingdom and the other countries of western Europe, so also we in North America cannot solve our economic problems in isolation from western Europe. The same is true of the United Kingdom and of the other European members of the north Atlantic alliance; they cannot solve their economic problems or their defence problems apart from us in North America.
There is much to be said, in establishing a new institution such as the north Atlantic alliance, for a policy of going slowly to begin with. In ordinary times that certainly would be good advice. But these are not ordinary times. Events are moving fast today and our international economic and political institutions should not lag too far behind.
The house will, I know, not expect me to be more specific today. The first thing is for the North Atlantic council at its next meeting to consider what machinery should be set up for study and discussion and negotiation on this whole question of how best to implement the obligations of all members of the

External Affairs
community under the treaty to promote conditions of stability and well-being, to seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and to encourage economic collaboration between them. The important thing is to get the machinery going so that we can get a better idea of just what is involved in a process of increasing social and economic collaboration amongst the north Atlantic nations, how fast we are likely to be able to go in the course of the next few years, and what difficulties we are likely to meet.
We have before us a task which will call forth all our reserves of intelligence, good will and imagination. It is not the negative, though vitally important, task of containing Russian imperialism. It is the positive task of creating a free community of free states, strong not only in its military resources, but in the prosperity of its people and the power of its free, progressive institutions.
Before coming to my final paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for trespassing on the patience of the house for so long, I should like to say a few words in closing this survey on a subject upon which I have already touched. I believe, however, that it is so important it needs further mention. It colours all these specific problems about which I have talked. It is the subject of communism and Russian imperialism and its relationship to these problems. I think it is important to understand what we are fighting against in the cold war. We of the free democracies are not fighting progress or social reform; we are not seeking to restore or to perpetuate feudal regimes or outworn dogmas. We recognize the need for change in Asia, Africa, and other parts of the world. We do not, however, want the underprivileged of the world to follow the paths which the unhappy people of Russia and of the satellite states have been forced to follow by their masters in the Kremlin.
It is the Russian state, under the control of these masters, which practises at home and exports abroad the reactionary system of society which I have attempted to describe, while pretending at "peace congresses" and in the United Nations that it alone is ready to disarm, it alone is ready to prohibit the atomic bomb and that it alone is the true champion of world peace. The record does not support any such pretension.
I should like for a few moments to point to one very important chapter in that record which will show how far Russia's pretensions depart from Russia's performance. I am referring to the efforts which we are now making to control the use of atomic energy so it will never be used for anything but

peaceful purposes. There is no question before the world today in any way comparable with this one in its importance. The Russians admit this. They talk loudly, especially at Lake Success-and I have had to listen to their talks a great deal in the last six weeks-about immediate and unqualified outlawing of the atom bomb, but they refuse to participate in any scheme in which international control and inspection would be effective and adequate for that purpose. Without such control, pledges and protocols would, in the present atmosphere of international suspicion and mistrust, be worse than useless. They would be dangerous, by providing a false facade of security behind which the aggressor could develop his evil plans. We had some experience of this in the 1930's.
The Russian delegates at the United Nations meetings keep on saying: we accept international inspection and adequate control; we agree that international inspectors should be able to visit declared Russian production facilities "periodically" and be granted permission to make "special" searches if the inspectors could show that there were grounds for suspecting either the presence of an undeclared plant in their territories or the diversion from one of the declared plants of clandestine production while the inspectors were away. But what they did not say and what they would not explain to us in answer to specific questions was how the rest of the world was to find out anything more about atomic plants inside Russia than the Russians chose to tell us, or how inspectors were to have grounds for suspicion if they did not have access to vast areas of the Soviet hinterland.
But, it may be said, all this is very fine; we know about the hypocrisy of Russia, both in its use of international communism and in its toying with the hopes of all peoples for peace, security, justice and freedom-but all the same, we must somehow reach agreement with the Russians on the international control of atomic energy before we are all blown to bits by it.
I agree that we must never give up trying. We must not get into an atomic groove or refuse to examine any proposal from any quarter which may be put forward. However, it takes two to make an agreement and two to make the necessary compromises on which agreement can be based. Until the Russians give some indication of their readiness to accept genuine, not spurious, international control and inspection, it is hard to see at the moment where progress can be made.
The basic difficulty is, of course, the Soviet fear of any contact with the west-a fear

which is almost pathological. The Soviet leaders also stubbornly maintain that they cannot possibly accept any limitations of their sovereignty. We maintain, on the contrary, that we cannot afford to cling to an ancient concept of sovereignty when what we are seeking is a chance for survival. We shall never get anywhere, in our view, if we insist on talking about national sovereignty as if, in atomic matters, it were more important than national and international security, or if we consider that, by using our national sovereignty for joint action, we are losing it.
Whether we are talking about atomic or conventional weapons, we must have some means of knowing, not in any absolute sense, because that is quite impossible, but within reasonable limits of certainty that no country is in a position to bamboozle the rest of the world as to the number of atom bombs or battleships or bombers or battalions that it possesses. If we cannot agree on a system for controlling the vast and conspicuous facilities necessary for the production of nuclear fuels, then we shall not reach agreement on the rest of our armaments industries which can more readily be camouflaged as factories for peaceful production or indeed may be hidden underground.
The cold fact in the cold war is that we do not trust the Russians enough to agree to destroy our atomic weapons and facilities for making them until we are in a position to satisfy ourselves, by international inspection and control of their facilities, that they do not secretly stockpile atomic bombs. The Russians, for their part, are not willing to entrust to an international atomic development authority, which they claim would be under Anglo-American domination, adequate functions of control, agreed beforehand and embodied in a treaty. This is merely another way of saying, Mr. Speaker, that the problem of peace is much broader than the problem of agreeing on the clauses of a tready to prohibit the use of the atom bomb. It is the problem of establishing sufficient mutual confidence to tackle not only disarmament and the bomb but the whole range of major friction points-political, strategic and economic-which are witnesses today of the tragic division between the two worlds.
In conclusion, I come back to what our Prime Minister, then secretary of state of external affairs (Mr. St. Laurent), said eighteen months ago in this house. He spoke then of the "tragic inability of the western democracies and the eastern totalitarian states, led by the U.S.S.R., to establish any basis for co-operation or even any basis for mutual toleration." He went on to say: *"We had hoped for mutual toleration founded
External Affairs
on a genuine desire to live and let live. It seems now that we shall have to be content with toleration based on what I hope will be a healthy respect for the determination of each of us to prevent encroachment and resist domination by the others."
Since that statement of the Prime Minister, the democratic world has made good progress toward the limited but practicable goal which he outlined. For that progress along the road to at least limited collective security, we can be thankful.
Much, however, remains to be done, and no one can be very optimistic about the future. I say that without intending to be unduly panicky about the future. But no one can be unreasonably optimistic about the future as long as the free democratic and the Russian communist worlds face each other in fear, misunderstanding and mistrust.
In these international questions which I have been surveying, I fear, in a haphazard and inadequate way, Canada has made a good and effective contribution to the cause of good international relations and the achievement of real peace. Our prestige stands high among the nations; and I know that all Canadians will do their best to keep that position high.
At the same time, no Canadian government is ever likely to forget that the roots of a successful foreign policy must be deep in the knowledge and understanding of the people, in an enlightened awareness of what is in the best interests of our people. As I say, there should be no contradiction between our international and our national interests. In the difficult days ahead, while Canadian foreign policy must stand on its own feet, it must also march, whenever possible, in step with those who are or who will become our friends. It must be based on the true interest of Canada but of a Canada which could not, even if it desired to do so, remain isolated or insulated from the community of all peoples which now inhabit our small atomic world.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, in the five minutes or less which are left before the noon recess intervenes, I have no intention of launching into the main points which I think are worthy of discussion following the comprehensive review of world affairs given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). However, I do want to point up one or two matters to which he referred.
In his closing sentences the minister intimated that the people of Canada must have a deep knowledge of external affairs. I heartily agree with that statement, because

External Affairs
we cannot hope to have the informed and intelligent support of the people of Canada in our foreign policies unless the people are informed constantly, continuously and fully as to the facts and conditions upon which the government bases those policies.
I should like to suggest that when an important debate on external affairs is to take place-and it is a matter of infrequency -it would only be fair for the government to inform the representatives in Ottawa of other countries-we must have something like thirty of them-so that they may have an opportunity of sitting in the galleries to listen. I counted only four of such representatives in the galleries this morning to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs make his speech, which was the first major one on this subject by a government minister since the session of 1948.
If there was one thing more than another which the minister's speech conveyed to all parts of the house, it was the impossibility of covering world issues in an hour and three-quarters and doing it in such a way as to give full information to parliament and the public. The public deserves something more than a sporadic bit of information, such as we have been getting prior to this morning. I know the minister has been away on important public duties. We are all proud to share in the reflected glory which came to him as chairman of the main committee of the United Nations. I am not directing any adversely critical remarks to him on that score. But the government has to change its policy, I think, so that more than four per cent of the time of the house -the percentage given to external affairs in the last three sessions-may be given to what I think is the most important of all the issues before the people of Canada, namely, the issue of peace or war.
If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it one o'clock.


Thomas Langton Church: May I have two or three minutes to call the minister's attention to a matter-


Mr. Si. Laurent:: I think the hon. member should be informed that he has already spoken in this debate.


Thomas Langton Church: The committee is just a whitewashing committee. That is all it is.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no doubt that the hon. member for Broadview has already spoken in this debate. I would refer him to standing order 43.
At one o'clock the house took recess.

The house resumed at three o'clock. NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY


ANNOUNCEMENT AS TO MEETINGS OF DEFENCE AND MILITARY COMMITTEES
Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the house I should like to revert to motions in order to make a brief announcement.
Since the house met at eleven o'clock this morning an invitation has been received from Louis Johnson, Secretary of Defence of the United States of America and chairman of the defence committee under the North Atlantic treaty, to attend a meeting of that committee to be held at Paris on December 1. We have sent an acceptance of that invitation, and I shall attend the meeting.
We also received word that General Omar Bradley, the chairman of the military committee under the North Atlantic treaty, has summoned a meeting of that committee to be held also at Paris on November 29. Canada will be represented at that meeting by Lieutenant General Charles Foulkes, chairman of the chiefs of staff committee and chief of the general staff of Canada.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson that certain estimates of the Department of External Affairs be referred to the standing committee on external affairs.
Gordon Graydon: Mr. Speaker, before the noon recess I had addressed my remarks largely to the minister's observations with respect to a fuller measure of information being made available to parliament and the people with regard to international relations and world issues generally. I think there is an urgent need to build up a constructive and intelligent Canadian opinion on world affairs from one end of Canada to the other. In my opinion Canadians are hungry for a knowledge of world affairs.
As I look from one end of this chamber to the other I see a great number of hon. members who from time to time have taken it upon themselves to speak in various parts of Canada with respect to foreign relations. I think it might properly be said that many of us have spoken more on that subject than perhaps we have on any domestic issue. I think most of us who have done so have found that there is a great interest on the

part of the citizenry of this country in the problems which this parliament and government face. The Department of External Affairs ought to see to it that in the days that lie ahead the conditions which have existed in the days gone by shall not be perpetuated and that the government and the department take the people of Canada more fully into their confidence with respect to world affairs generally.
We should know what is going on outside this nation through information coming from governmental sources. We should know further what the government may decide from time to time they are going to do about it. On that score I am impelled to refer the house to the penetrating and constructive criticism of Mr. I. Norman Smith of the Ottawa Journal, an experienced observer in the field of international relations. Mr. Smith had something to say on this point only two weeks ago when he was writing from Lake Success. After taking the minister and his department to task in a friendly way for refusing to take the public of Canada into their confidence on the vital happenings in the world from day to day, and expressing the conviction that there is a great deal of news about what is going on in the world that Canadians do not get, he declared that while the Department of External Affairs gets that news and shapes its policies upon it, it only comes to the Canadian people in the form of the final decision.
One observation he made was that it is no answer to say that diplomatic information must not be let out. The British let out much more and so do the United States. Mr. Smith goes on to say:
We lack informed controversy. And Informed controversy makes for enthusiastic public support of intelligent foreign policy.
The end effect of our present policy of secrecy is that we are told virtually nothing about the situation until suddenly we are told we are breaking diplomatic relations or refusing trade or even going to war.
Mr. Smith is not a man who thus speaks out without some provocation, and were it not for my limited time today I should like to quote him more fully. What he said has been emphasized lately in this chamber when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was asked in the house just a short time ago what Canada was going to do at the United Nations when the vote came for the Czechoslovakian or Yugoslavian candidature for a non-permanent seat on the security council. The Prime Minister indicated very clearly that in his opinion the question ought not to have
External Affairs
been asked because it was the practice of the administration not to tell anybody what the government of Canada was going to do.
Not only were we not told what instructions were given on that occasion to the Canadian delegation; nobody has found out yet which way we voted. One would almost imagine that the Canadian people had no right to know what side they were being put on in New York and that the decision must remain locked up with only the government and its senior officials holding the key. We in Canada know how the United States and Britain voted, but apparently we are not to be informed of our own stand. I think we in this parliament and the people generally are entitled to that sort of information so long as the safety and security of the nation is not at stake.
Recently the United States government announced its intention to appoint a separate assistant secretary of state who would be charged with the specific responsibility of assisting the people in that nation to keep pace with the foreign policies of the government and its growing influence in world affairs. Such a move apparently seemed commendable to the United States government, not only on the ground that it helps its citizens to understand the foreign policies of the government, but for the more important reason that it recognizes that a foreign policy without public support could very easily become no foreign policy at all.
I am not suggesting that we should follow that move in all the details I have described. I think we have the machinery in our own Department of External Affairs which would make a drastic move of that kind unnecessary. There is in the Department of External Affairs an information division which in the main does a satisfactory job, but its activities must necessarily follow and not precede government decisions on policy. The result is that little information becomes available as to the various backgrounds upon which our foreign policies are based. I submit that full information is much more essential now that the government has retreated from its former policy of having multiple-party representation at the United Nations, although I am not suggesting that the government should go back to that practice at the moment.
When the government gets away from the people, whether on domestic issues or in the international field, there is always a tendency for a department to form itself into a little clique that thinks it knows better than the people the amount of information and the details thereof that should be given. We had a good example just before the house rose

External Affairs
tor the noon recess. A question arose which I think is of vast concern and interest to the people of Canada generally. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) spoke about the commonwealth of nations rather than the British commonwealth of nations. I am quite sure I have been guilty of doing so myself, and I imagine that other members on all sides of the house have also done so from time to time. For purposes of abbreviation the expression "commonwealth of nations" may sometimes be used inadvertently without the adjective "British", but I certainly think that we who have been guilty of that abbreviation from time to time would not want it understood that because we used the abbreviated form we meant something other than the British commonwealth of nations.
I want to say to the minister and the government that I think the services and contribution of Great Britain in the two world wars, which proved the bastion and bulwark of democracy, are enough to make the Canadian people proud to put the word "British" before the words "commonwealth of nations". I think no one has any need to apologize for that. I have no particular objection to people abbreviating, but I suggest that when they do so they ought to make it clear in the abbreviation that they mean the British commonwealth of nations.
It seems strange to me that an issue which is so important to the people should be casually put before parliament on an occasion such as this, and that we should learn officially for the first time in an introductory message from the minister that in some respects this country has turned its back upon the designation, "British commonwealth of nations", and has now adopted "commonwealth of nations". I think that only emphasizes what I have been trying to say, that we are not getting enough of the background and information whereby an intelligent opinion can be formed. That is a good example of the kind of surprise to which the parliament of Canada should not be subjected in this enlightened age.
I wish now to deal with the activities of the department and the minister. With the steady invasion of Canada into the field of foreign relations, accelerated greatly by our magnificent contribution, if I may say so, in two world wars, which gave us a prominent place at the San Francisco conference and has given us a prominent place in all international gatherings since that time, it is only natural that the department should have grown with great rapidity. As a matter of fact, it has grown to a high level of importance

among the units of governmental administration at Ottawa. I think it is only fair to say that the department has attached to its personnel some of the ablest public servants of whom Canada can boast, and many of them young veterans of the last world war. It is a well-known fact that in the councils of the world-and those of us who have served with some of these officials overseas and in other places can bear testimony to what I am saying-our external affairs representatives have played a leading part. I desire to pay tribute to those who have played so important a role for Canada in its relations with other countries at global gatherings.
As far as possible, in my opinion, the issue of determining peace and war should not be subject to thoughtless or synthetic criticism. Nevertheless it is the duty of the opposition, by way of stimulating suggestions and careful examination, to make sure that the new department operates efficiently. Perhaps I should not use the word "new" because it is not new except in its recent development. The Department of External Affairs has mushroomed from a personnel of 392 in 1941 to a present total of 1,248. I think it is important that the opposition and parliament make sure that, by reason of inadequate constructive criticism, we do not allow the department to be the spoiled child of either the government or parliament.
I should like to say further that I am not particularly critical of the expenditure of money on our external affairs. I think of course that the opposition must always be on the alert to see that the taxpayer gets the best value for every dollar that is spent. I merely want to point out to the minister and to the department generally that in certain respects I think we ought carefully to scrutinize their expenditures. Canada's population constitutes only one out of every 188 of the entire world's population, and has a relatively small national income compared to some of those with which we have to compete. It is hard to avoid the human weakness of trying to keep up with the international Joneses. Sometimes the international Joneses have a much deeper purse from which to draw than we have. I am not pointing to any special detail of the department except to indicate that, although Canada's foreign affairs have largely been lifted out of the realm of narrow controversy from a party point of view, at the same time we must watch that the department does not in the future-and I am not saying it has done so in the past-run wild so far as its expenditures and these other matters are concerned.

I come now to another point, and I do so without reflection upon any of our present diplomatic representatives abroad. I think it can properly be said that, as far as possible, we should have representing us at the capitals of the nations of the world Canadians who are truly representative of some of the great sections of our population. They are our show windows. More often than not Canada is judged in a foreign country by the one man who goes from this dominion to represent us at that nation's capital. I think it will be at once seen how important it is today to choose the right man for the job, because of the increased importance of our international relations generally. We should be training for our senior diplomatic posts men whose backgrounds are solidly rooted in some of the main occupations of our people. At once it will come to the minds of hon. members that the Canadian farmer, the Canadian workman, the Canadian businessman, and Canadian women are four sections of the population out of the many that could be mentioned, but I think it is time we set out to formulate a policy whereby we shall ensure that our representatives in other countries will be truly representative of the Canadian people, their occupations, their ideals and so forth.
We draw men for diplomatic posts from some of the professions, but so far as I know we have pretty well neglected the agricultural colleges of our nation when we seek material for diplomatic representation abroad. We have not gone to the trade unions for material either, and in my opinion this shows a lack of practical vision which is rather essential for our future success in the diplomatic field. Therefore, I say it is time to pause, take inventory and construct a virile practical policy in so far as our foreign representation is concerned.
Before I leave the subject of the department itself I want to suggest to the government an amendment to the legislation creating the Department of External Affairs. I fancy the minister himself may find this suggestion rather welcome, as I hope other members of the house will. We should not have to continue to go through the agony of referring to the minister as the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Worse than that, we have to refer to the under-secretary of state for external affairs, and I believe there is still the further title of associate undersecretary of state for external affairs. If for no other reason than economy in printing, my suggestion ought to meet with favour. The terminology is clumsy, cumbersome and confusing. I suggest that the head of the
External Affairs
department should be known, as he is practically always called now, as the Minister of External Affairs and his deputy as the deputy minister of external affairs. I have made this suggestion previously, but I want to press home upon the government the desirability of making this change in the interests not only of the minister and his deputy but of parliament and the people, and particularly the press.
Now for a moment I should like to deal with Canada's cardinal foreign policy. In all the speeches that are made and the discussions that take place from time to time I believe we must never lose sight of the fact that the cardinal policy for Canada must be the maintenance of permanent peace and security for our people. Around this desirable and essential objective we must range our diplomatic moves. This nation has a key part to play in peace, for no nation has a greater stake in international harmony than Canada. We have nothing to gain from war; we never did have anything to gain from war. We have everything to gain from peace. Our national objectives here at home, looking to the development of a heritage that no other people in the world have been privileged to enjoy, are predicated upon the nations of the world remaining at peace with each other. So I say, in the interests of ourselves and of others, our cardinal policy must never be lost sight of in the many diplomatic discussions that take place dealing with foreign affairs. We must never depart from the objective of international co-operation, understanding and peace.
It is easy to belittle the work of the United Nations; and I was pleased to hear what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had to say just a few hours ago in that regard. In many quarters it is fashionable to decry the work of that organization. I believe we as a nation should refuse to join the hue and cry against a well inten-tioned, if perhaps at times rather futile, instrument for collective security and world peace. When the shortcomings of the United Nations are being carefully inventoried and told in colourful language, it is well to remember that a perfect organization for peace is impossible in a yet imperfect world. We should not lay all the blame on the doorstep of the United Nations organization. It is frequently forgotten-I do not think the minister mentioned this in his hurried review this morning, but I want to mention it now- that when the United Nations organization was formed at San Francisco it was predicated upon what the world felt was a proper assumption; that is, that before it undertook any major operations we would have peace treaties between the nations that took part

External Affairs
in the last war. Instead of that, however, the United Nations has been forced to operate on a basis which was never contemplated. Peace treaties have not been signed, except with minor countries in Europe. The major peace treaties are outstanding, and perhaps that is one of the principal reasons why there is so much confusion, despair and discouragement with respect to the work of the organization.
Some of us in this house who were present when the organization was born at San Francisco are perhaps more discouraged and disappointed than anyone else. It was natural that we should have glorious hopes with respect to what that great organization might do. But to those who are enemies of the United Nations, those who are perhaps thoughtless opponents of that organization, I say we should pause and just think back as to what kind of world this would have been if there had been no positive and organized plan for permanent peace as the last armed holocaust drew to a close. Had that happened, in effect the nations of the world would have been admitting bankruptcy in ideals and objectives, and indeed in the field of world peace itself.
I do not think I want to go as far as the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) went some time ago, when he referred to one of the main organs of the United Nations as being "frozen in futility and divided by dissension", though I have no doubt that at times he must have felt that this description fitted it. I am not so sure I would go that far, however, and I do not think parliament generally wants to go that far. Nevertheless I think that as a nation we must realize that no matter how determined our country may be to preserve world peace, we cannot hope to bring about that peace, security and prosperity by our own efforts alone. Let us start with that assumption, no matter what party we may belong to in this House of Commons, because it is a stark, naked fact in this very uncertain world of today. Out of this realization was born the United Nations, a world-wide effort to organize peace-loving countries in a search for peace and progress on a universal scale. Unfortunately the effort to achieve collective security through this medium has not been as successful as had been hoped by the founders at San Francisco, because of the obstruction of a minority small to begin with but which has been increasing in numbers and power for a considerable time.
When we speak of that minority we might as well mention those to whom we refer. It is Soviet Russia and her satellite states who have been endeavouring to create chaos and confusion in the very organization that was

set up to preserve peace and harmony in the world. As a result freedom-loving nations have proceeded with a search for collective security on another broad basis, yet within the charter of the United Nations itself. Our government, with the full endorsation of the people, have followed such a foreign policy and I believe are determined to continue to follow it. That policy is set out in the North Atlantic treaty.
Therefore I want to sound a note of warning against any tendency to underestimate or undervalue the work of the United Nations. There is a very definite and important job for this organization to do through its various agencies. In some respects it is doing that job. I believe it must still be given a chance to slowly but effectively knit and weave the pattern of international unity on a universal scale. We in Canada must never flag nor fail in our resolute quest for a just and lasting peace.
Before I leave the subject of the United Nations, I should like to mention that, after the first general assembly of 1946 in London, I took occasion to warn this parliament that the United Nations might easily become a glorified debating forum if certain circumstances prevailed for any length of time. My statement was made at a time when I was calling upon President Truman, Prime Minister Attlee and Premier Stalin. I called upon them not to boycott the United Nations but to come themselves and meet on common ground annually to clear away the fog of global differences. My fear was that with secondary representatives rather than the primary chiefs in command, issues might be dodged, decisions delayed and talk might replace action. Many of my fears have proven justified. I repeat the call. If the nations of the world desire peace, then I think it is up to the chiefs of the main nations of the world to go to the United Nations. If they think it is the important body they have told the rest of the world it is, then there is some responsibility on those chiefs to go to that organization, put their feet under a table and solve some of the problems the common people of the world want them to solve.
I should like to deal with a subject which was stressed by the minister when he made his speech, but I wish to deal with an aspect of it which he did not discuss. When the international atomic energy commission was set up at the first meeting of the general assembly of the United Nations in 1946, we were pleased to see the signal role of Canada recognized. She was appointed as one of the permanent members of that commission. The

strong and constant pressure exerted by Canadian representatives from time to time down to the present crisis, urging effective international control and inspection, has in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, carried the unanimous approval of the Canadian people. It would be a tragedy of the first magnitude, I submit, if such a destructive force as the atom should be allowed to run wild in time of war. Our very civilization may well be at stake in the issues now up for decision. I cannot emphasize too strongly the argument put forward by the minister on that point this morning when he spoke of atomic energy for peaceful use-yes; atomic energy for war-no. That is the Canadian policy in a nutshell. We must proceed to try to find agreement to control the use of atomic energy.
Evidence was given before the House of Commons committee on atomic energy which points up another issue which may well involve our external relations with the great republic to the south of us. Everyone who has spoken on behalf of this government has said that, so far as Canada is concerned, our part in the development of atomic energy is the development of it for peaceful purposes and industrial use. That is what we should be doing; that is our job and the government says that is our policy.
The chairman of the Canadian atomic energy control board, in giving testimony before the committee the other day, stated that a United States law passed in 1946 prohibits Canada having with that country the same close contact she has with the United Kingdom. In a press dispatch reporting the proceedings of the committee the chairman is quoted as follows:
Internally Chalk River's heavy water radioactive pile lets Canada do research that can't be done elsewhere, that eight universities on their own initiative are doing research of large value with state aid on capital outlays, and that it is "a tragedy"-
These are the chairman's own words:
-it is "a tragedy" that secrecy requirements nre-vent industry from playing the role it could play in the atom's early era.
Since this appears to enter into the field of our external relations with the United States, we should be told what agreement or understanding on the international level these facts are predicated upon. As compared with the partnership between government and industry which characterizes the development of atomic energy on a peacetime basis in the United States, industry in Canada seems to be completely hobbled. More than that, it is said that fifty per cent of the United States atomic energy commission spending goes directly into industry
External Affairs
and appears to indicate that the United States policy, in vivid contrast to ours, is to make available to industry such information as is possible within the limits of national safety and security. This enables industry to acquire the know-how of atomic energy and its direct application to industrial uses. No doubt the significance of that will come to the mind of every member of the house.
No one doubts the immense possibilities of this form of power in the domain of medicine, biology, agriculture and industry. Its future use may usher in an era of change of as vital importance to the people of this country and the world as did steam and electricity in the days long past. Its future use may be revolutionary in character and it may open up an era of which we have never even dreamed. Yet, the head of our atomic energy control board in Canada says it is a tragedy that industry is not participating in atomic research. The reason given is secrecy.
This policy adopted by one nation and not another might easily put Canadian industry and labour behind the "eight ball", to use a street term, in the competitive field of power and other atomic uses in the future. The people should be told whether this difference in policy in Canada is a domestic governmental decision or whether it is founded on some arrangement between the two countries on the international level. If it is the latter then this house should know what that understanding or agreement is.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to another matter which is of paramount importance in the discussion of our foreign affairs today. When the Canadian signature was placed upon the North Atlantic treaty, it marked a major departure from Canada's previously expounded anti-commitment policy in the field of world relations. It meant that this nation had caught the spirit of reality in the realm of collective security and was prepared to say what this country would do in a given set of circumstances. So determined are our people that the world's war dogs shall be kept behind doors barred and locked forever, the treaty passed parliament without a dissenting vote and was endorsed by the people generally. The scant disapproval given to it was given by those who have the mistaken idea that the communist system of government is better than our own democracy. As an instrument for peace rather than an instrument for war, as an instrument within rather than without the framework of the United Nations, it became necessary when the veto-ridden security council became nearly impotent as an enforcement body. The security council

External Affairs
lacked teeth. This was to provide the teeth required to see that peace is kept on an international scale. On September 19, 1947, Prime Minister St. Laurent, speaking as Canadian secretary of state for external affairs, told the general assembly of the United Nations meeting at that time:
. . . that the nations, if forced, may seek greater safety in an association of democratic and peace-loving states, willing to accept more specific international obligations in return for a greater measure of national security.
On October 25, 1948, the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in a speech before the United Nations association in Toronto, announced that Canada's defence program was planned after consultation with others, so that what Canada might do in the way of defence would fit into any subsequent plan that might be arrived at after parliament had given approval to the Atlantic pact.
On November 26, 1948, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), in a press conference at The Hague, is reported to have said:
. . . that Canada will commit herself freely to military measures specific enough for security.
Since these statements of Canadian foreign policy were announced, Canada and eleven other countries have signed the Atlantic pact. Although the Atlantic pact was ratified at the last session of parliament, the specific obligations of that pact have not yet been made public. I am convinced that the time has come for parliament and the country to be given more facts as to our obligations under the Atlantic pact.
I read the report of the debate on Friday, in which the Minister of National Defence had something to say with respect to Canada's defence policy. If any reading of his words bears out what his intentions were, then it would seem to me that it was delightfully vague with respect to the relationship of Canada's specific commitments under the North Atlantic treaty and Canada's defence plan and policy at home. It was a delightfully vague disposal of the whole problem. More than that, I listened this morning to the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaking in excellent language, conveying his thoughts to the house in an eloquent way, but still not getting to the point as to just what were our commitments of a specific character in the way of national defence as related to the North Atlantic treaty. I suggest that the Secretary of State for External Affairs can hardly say that he is not yet ready to divulge such information, in view of his statement in the House of

Commons on September 16 last. In reply to a question he said:
The report has been considered by the government, and we think it provides a suitable basis for the organization required under the Atlantic pact, so that it can become an effective instrument for the carrying out of its primary purpose, that of assisting the United Nations in preserving peace and preventing aggression.
After all, if the Secretary of State for External Affairs can, in effect, announce to the nation on September 16 that the Atlantic defence structure, as drafted, is satisfactory to Canada, surely at this date, many weeks later, either he or the Minister of National Defence should be able to give a much clearer, much more definite and much more constructive answer than has already been given.
The Canadian people are entitled to know what it is that we are committed to under the North Atlantic treaty. Once they know what we are committed to under that treaty, there will be no doubt as to the kind of full support the Canadian people will be prepared to give to the government. When they are going to give that support, I think they are entitled to have the government take them into their confidence in connection with it. I do not think it is proper to have too many of these things kept in the exclusive preserve of the government. There are a great many things that ought to be in the exclusive preserve of the people. I cannot think that the minister will allow this present discussion to terminate without presenting to the Canadian people what it has meant in terms of commitments and present and future plans of defence for this nation to sign the Atlantic pact. Parliament and the people gave ungrudging support to the government on the principle of the Atlantic pact. I think the government ought now to give ungrudgingly the information to which the people of Canada are entitled -always, of course, within the limits of national safety and security.
Now I come to another point and that is Canada's relations with Britain and the United States. This nation's foreign policy and her very position in international affairs are influenced very materially by Anglo-American relations. More than all others there are three great powers whose friendship with us, and with each other, has made our diplomatic path easier in the past. Upon the continuance of this relationship will be founded much of our security in the future. Britain, France and the United States, without reflecting upon any other group of nations, have been singularly close to us in geography, ideals, objectives and sentiment. In two great wars all four of those nations fought

side by side. May there never come a time when our relations with any of them suffer decline.
I was interested in a reference made this morning by the minister. It was a characteristic reference of his. He said that, in our relations with the United States, after all perhaps we should not take too much for granted-and I agree with that sentiment- and that in the case of diplomacy with the United States, just as in marriage and friendship, we should not allow those relations to be weakened by neglect.
I can readily recall the foreign secretary of Britain answering a question on the floor of the United Kingdom parliament in 1945, when someone asked him at that time-and I think it was an opposition question-whether the minister did not think it would be a good thing if Britain had more meetings with the Russians as the diplomatic relations between the countries were somewhat deteriorating. I can quite well remember Mr. Bevin standing up. I can see him to this day. I wondered what kind of answer he would give. He said something to this effect: My hon. friend must surely know that many close friendships are made very much closer the less often some of these friends see each other. I could not help repeating that story today, but I do not think it applies to a relationship which is as close and intimate as that between Canada and the United States; closeness and intimacy must always remain characteristics of our relations with our great neighbour to the south.
In view of the fact that Britain is a member nation with us in the great commonwealth family and when I say "commonwealth family , I want to say that the connotation there is the British commonwealth family, so there will be no excuse for anyone questioning me in that regard if I happen to abbreviate in the future-and that we and they enjoy the privilege and honour of the same crowned head, and in consequence of the further fact that sentiment plays such an important role in our family relations, it would seem to me that an effort should be made to bring our royal family in closer contact with the people of Canada. The year 1939 was the first time that a governing monarch of Britain or Canada ever set foot upon Canadian soil.
That always seemed to me unfortunate and particularly when the unifying results which attended Their Majesties' visit at that time were so apparent and real. In my opinion, our Canadian children should not have to leave Canada to be able to see their own King and Queen. At more frequent intervals,
External Affairs
subject to the health of Their Majesties, we should have them with us in our own land. This would constitute a first step towards the laudable objective of having an itinerant crowned head, residing for appropriate periods among his several groups of subjects. Only those who have been privileged' to travel outside our borders have seen Their Royal Highnesses, the popular and idolized Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. In my humble opinion, the government should exert every possible effort to have Princess Margaret visit Canada next year, as has been hinted in other quarters of recent days. Her beauty, charm and youth would go far to establish firmly in the hearts of the Canadian people the love and affection in which the royal family is held in every corner of this land. We can assure the princess of a welcome, the warmth of which will be matched only by that tendered to her royal father and mother a decade before, and which will be later tendered to her illustrious sister and the Duke of Edinburgh, and last but not least bonnie Prince Charlie himself.
I want to turn for a moment, if I may, to the continent of Europe, which for a long time has seen the seeds of war planted beneath her soil. I think it can be said that the establishment of the western union, the signing of the North Atlantic treaty, which brought in the power of the new world as a factor in the stabilization of Europe, the institution of the so-called parliament of Europe and the success of the west in the Berlin impasse, all played a vital part in re-establishing the position of the western democracies in the troubled European scene.
The Berlin blockade, which has since been lifted, was a turning point in the cold war for prestige in the neurotic continent of Europe. Before the Berlin impasse occurred, the prestige of the western democratic powers had reached the lowest ebb since the second world war came to a close. The shattered continent wondered what the future had in store for it; would it be democracy or communism? The western powers seemed so far away. No matter what their will was, were they able to carry it out? And at the same time the hot breath of the nearby Russian bear was blowing down their necks.
When the allied powers made a decisive stand on the Berlin blockade and organized the world's most successful airlift, it brought democracy back into the running again so far as the continent of Europe was concerned. It turned the tide. Since that time the Russian foreign ministry has changed hands. Yugoslavia seems to have mutinied, Italy has strengthened its democratic position and
18S4

External Affairs
France shows definite signs of recovery and consequent attachment to the democratic cause. The cold war has not gone so well for Russia in Europe as she had hoped, but we shall do well not to underestimate the dangers which still are so apparent there when we hear that Malenkov, one of the top members of the politburo, said in Moscow only a few days ago that Russia had the atomic bomb; that a third world war would destroy capitalism; that the United States was plotting armed intervention in countries bordering the Soviet union, but that the Soviet union of course sought nothing except peace.
We should not be lulled into a sense of false security by honeyed phrases and sweet nothings. We should realize that the threat of Russian aggression is no less because of this apparent shift in strategy.
It is now evident to Russia that the communist policy of threats and name-calling displayed in the cold war failed to shake the democracies ox their policies. This new approach is merely a shift from cold war to cold diplomacy. This new peace-talk diplomacy of Russia is not a shift of goals but merely a shift of methods designed to lead us down the primrose path of complacency along which democracies are so vulnerable.
I should like to have time this afternoon to deal with some of the things that are reported to be happening within the Soviet-controlled part of the continent, but time is fleeting. I do want however to make reference to one thing before I leave Europe. There are important current developments on the west German diplomatic front today. The minister dealt with them as best he could in the limited time at his disposal this morning. The government should furnish such facts to parliament and to the people as can safely be given, so that public opinion can crystallize with respect to the pros and cons of the proposal to bring gradually this part of Germany into the western democratic orb. It will at once be seen that this is essential in a nation like Canada which lost so many of the flower of its manhood in two wars. Keeping that in mind one will readily see how important it is; and I emphasize this upon the government with every bit of earnestness that I have at my command. I suggest to the government that they ought to give the public sufficient facts so that public opinion may be crystallized upon this particular point, because it is a matter of major importance to this nation that we have a supporting public behind any move of that kind that may be made. A confused opinion based on sketchy and inadequate facts may be a

serious matter. The house should be told whether the newspaper reports hinting at an exchange of diplomats between Ottawa and the west German capital of Bonn have any foundation in fact. We should be told, too, whether in fact the western democracies are extending their frontiers, as the Secretary of State of the United States, Dean Acheson, said only a few days ago; whether they are extending them to the banks of the Elbe. The interest of the average Canadian in the stirringly vital movements in Europe is both keen and urgent. He knows that in this war-shattered continent may well be found the answer of peace or war in the critical days of tomorrow.
I now have a word to say with respect to the Far East. With four hundred millions of people added to the vast population previously within the orb of communism it can well be said that the danger spot for democracy is shifting to the Far East. China, a permanent member of the security council and former friend of the democracies, now has by armed revolution reversed her world allegiances. This change has far-reaching consequences for us as well as the other western powers. In a sense-I want hon. members to give some thought to this, if they will-China is today in a more inferior position as a former ally than if she had been our enemy in world war II. Today she has been abandoned to imperialistic aggression by Russian communism while Japan is occupied by democratic forces striving to restore her economy and establish a free government. Such are the puzzling situations that sometimes come to our attention in world affairs.
The Canadian ambassador is back from China. He should be called before the external affairs committee to testify upon the present conditions in that war-torn land. The hearts of Canadians are sad over the plight of China, for those of her people who have come to this country have been conscientious, honest and industrious citizens and have created a most favourable impression by their conduct among us.
Therefore, Canadians would like to know whether the new pro-Russian regime in China is likely to be more communist than Chinese or more Chinese than communist. Something may depend upon that, and we should be kept abreast of the information on that crucial point. We should know what information exists on the possibilities of further communist aggression in the strategic Far East. In short, the puzzled and confusing Chinese picture should be unveiled in the interests of a more intelligent and informed Canadian public opinion.

Coming to the close of my remarks I should like to deal now with a matter which I think is of paramount importance to this house and this country, and I refer to India. Many times it has been said with effect that the British commonwealth of nations can never be a static thing. Recent world developments have proved beyond question the soundness of that statement. For years the movement for liberation and independence was guided, fostered and promoted by Mahatma Gandhi and his devoted followers in that heavily populated land. Independence finally came, but with its birth came painful internal struggles and wide divergences of opinion between followers of different religious beliefs. But out of it came Pakistan and India, out of it came a great Indian leader and prime minister.
Pandit Nehru, the many-times-imprisoned disciple of Gandhi, assumed an even more important place in the sun with the assassination of the great Gandhi himself. In the confused and puzzled picture of the Far East, Nehru stands out as the beacon light of democracy against totalitarianism. His role is a difficult one to play in the internal and international field. With China temporarily mastered by communist forces, with many obstacles to reforms existing within the Indian nation itself, Nehru's task is a herculean one. I could not help thinking as he stood in this chamber a few short weeks ago, charged with the responsibility of governing over three hundred millions of people, that for both India and Canada a new era was breaking and that a new dawn had come in commonwealth change and development. Here was a man who had spent thirteen of his most productive years in British jails. It is a testimony to his tolerance, his greatness and his common sense that, despite all that he has gone through, he prefers to leave his nation, though a republic, still within the family of the British commonwealth. It is a tribute to the United Kingdom, it is a tribute to Nehru, it is a tribute to India, it is a tribute to the British commonwealth of nations.
As he was addressing us the thought must have occurred time after time to his listeners that there stood a great commonwealth statesman upon whose shoulders was being laid perhaps the main burden of defending the Far East and its teeming millions from the invasion of atheistic communism. Nehru's visit to Canada was more than an accident; it was a symbol of a coming understanding between east and west. It provided an opportunity for closer relationship between this great dominion and India as well as her sister dominions of Pakistan and Ceylon. In the light of all this I should like at this time
External Affairs
to make what I hope will be a constructive and far-reaching suggestion. I know it will be breaking new ground.
If the Prime Minister of Canada has not already received an invitation from the Indian government to pay a visit to India, and I rather fancy he has, then I think it should be made known to the Indian government and its Prime Minister that the Canadian Prime Minister would welcome an invitation to visit India at a convenient time, some time after the close of the next session of this parliament, and that he should institute for the first time in diplomatic history and provide personal leadership to a goodwill trek of representative Canadians to the new Indian nation and to our other commonwealth sisters in the east.
In the years that lie ahead, many Canadians will be going to India and other Far Eastern areas for business, diplomatic and other reasons. Such a good will visit by our own Prime Minister and by leading representative people from both our urban and our rural Canada, not confined to diplomats, not confined to men in politics, not confined to men in business, but broadly speaking a small but significant cross-section of the Canadian people, would be heralded the world over as a visit which broke new ground in a new era of international good will, co-operation and understanding. It would show the Indian people that Canada is interested in them, that Canada wants to be a co-operative sister with her in the great British commonwealth family, and that Canada is anxious that we shall establish as soon as possible a good trading relationship, because very often friendship flows with trade. And when that good will party, led by the Prime Minister, comes back to Canada, its very representative personnel would be able to take into the corners of Canada the story of India and her possibilities and the homes of Canada would be made more familiar with India, her problems, her people and her possibilities. This nation should not let this opportunity pass. We should be the first to extend a personal word of greeting through our own Canadian folk to the Indian people at large. It would be the major move in uniting east and west in a closer and more co-operative British commonwealth family.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my first word in taking part in this debate can be one of congratulation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on the thoughtful and comprehensive review of Canadian external relations which he has

External Affairs
given to this house. I hope it will not prove an embarrassment to the minister if I say that the members of the C.C.F. liked his speech, not only because of the way in which it was delivered and the information it supplied but more so because of the moral and social philosophy which we felt was so much a part of it. I am sure the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) will pardon me if I do not follow him in the very forceful speech he made, but I do want to touch on one point which he raised at the beginning of his speech. It may not be an important point, but I think it is desirable that it should be settled and I think it is one of those points in our foreign relations that can be settled.
The hon. member objected to the term "commonwealth of nations," and maintained it should be "British commonwealth of nations." I had the feeling that that term was settled upon when the prime ministers met in London last April. I understood that it was not really a matter of choice, it was a question of whether there would be a British commonwealth of nations with two or more of the most important nations outside of it just because of its name, or whether we should have a commonwealth of nations in which the countries of India and Pakistan would be partners. That was my understanding and I notice that in British literature the term "commonwealth of nations'' is used and not "British commonwealth of nations." As far as I am concerned the name is not important; what is important is the spirit of commonwealth. I am sure it will be there regardless of what name may be used.
I take part in the debate today with great hesitation. My hesitation is not because I have not arrived at conclusions about many of the problems discussed today. It arises from the fact that the issues involved in our international affairs are so varied and complex that the layman with his limited knowledge is not always sure if the conclusions arrived at are the right ones.
This afternoon I shall deal with a phase of our relations with other countries which I believe to be of paramount importance, and about which I have some understanding. I have in mind our economic relations. I am aware that economics and politics, nationally and internationally, are closely related. I am convinced that if the economic relations of the nations of the world do not run smoothly it is most unlikely that political relations will be satisfactory. I am also convinced that good economic relations
[Mr. Maclnnis.l
among the nations of the world are necessary if we are to have progress, prosperity and peace.
Like the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), and indeed, all parties in the house, I accept the United Nations as the basis for our external relations. Nevertheless Canada's external affairs involve a great deal more than the United Nations because what can be done in that body is limited. Even if there were not the opposition of the Soviet union, I think that the limits imposed by the unwieldly character of the organization would make it impossible for the nations of the world to carry on all their efforts through that body.
We know that the United Nations is a divided institution. It is not divided into a government and an opposition as this house is, but is divided into a majority and an opposition. May I say that Andrei Vishinsky is the opposition leader par excellence to anyone who wants to take lessons in what a leader of an opposition should be. He knows exactly what he is going to say in every debate before he leaves Moscow for Lake Success. Every debate is a violent accusation of the motives and intentions of the other members, and at the end of it he will always say no.
It was my good fortune to attend the second session of the United Nations assembly in 1947 as one of the parliamentary advisers to the Canadian delegation. In the six weeks that I had the opportunity of watching the proceedings of the assembly or its committees, never once did Mr. Vishinsky say that he agreed with anything that was proposed unless it was proposed by the Soviet bloc. That is what makes one almost despair of the United Nations. Indeed, I felt most pessimistic about its value during the time I spent there. I think the farther one is away from it the more hopeful one is that it may be of some use in settling world problems. That does not mean, however, that the Soviet union may not change its mind some day.
I have mentioned Mr. Vishinsky. I should also like to say that I am indeed pleased to note that the Canadian delegation to the United Nations assembly has begun to talk to Mr. Vishinsky in the only language that he understands. They are talking back to him. When I was there in 1947 I thought the only delegate who talked back to Mr. Vishinsky was Hector McNeil of Great Britain. I am glad indeed to see that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and only yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made speeches in which they talked to Mr. Vishinsky in the only terms that he understands.

I have had long experience in debating with communists, and I learned early that the only way to reply to them when they become belligerent is to become more belligerent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The same way you talk to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe).


Angus MacInnis: The way I talk to anyone who starts to get nasty. I likened the United Nations organization to a parliament, but of course there is a vital difference. In a parliament when the opposition has done its best or its worst, whichever way you look at it and I imagine the way you look at it depends on what side of the house you are on, the majority settles the question, and that finishes it. In the United Nations the minority makes the decisions, and the minority in this instance decides that nothing shall be done about things that matter. That is the real result of the veto in the security council.
I come now to the next point I wish to make. If we cannot do through the United Nations everything that we would like to do about our international affairs, then we must decide to do these things in other ways. We have already adopted that procedure. Less than a year ago the countries on both sides of the Atlantic ocean decided to enter into a treaty for collective defence. I was glad that the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to that treaty today, and that he referred to a phase of it in regard to which I am to say a few words. I am firmly convinced that, while the treaty provides for economic as well as military co-operation, we have not done as much to promote and co-ordinate economic co-operation amongst the nations signatory to the Atlantic pact as we have on the military side. The minister referred to article 2 this forenoon, but he did not read it. I think I will read it so hon. members may see that it is quite explicit with respect to the matter of economic co-operation:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
I agree that there has been some cooperation; but in my opinion the efforts at co-operation in the economic field have been half-hearted and not very successful. That is all-important, in my view, because if the nations of the North Atlantic pact are not economically strong they cannot be militarily strong, because our military strength will depend upon our economic strength. So it seems to me, and I have been thinking about
External Affairs
this for some considerable time, that the most disturbing aspect of our external relations, apart from the refusal of the soviet bloc to co-operate with other countries in the United Nations, is the fact that the western nations themselves do not accept co-operation as being good in itself. What has been done through Marshall aid was not done so much to help the countries of Europe build up their economies and improve their standards of living because that was desirable in itself. It was done more as a means of fighting communism, which at the time was becoming a threat to the peace, and not only the peace but the political stability, of several of the countries of Europe.
Yet co-operation has justified itself in times so recent as to be still within the memory of all. I refer, of course, to the cooperation among the countries opposed to Germany and Japan in the last war. So I would urge this government and its representatives to stress to other countries, and to practise as its own policy, economic co-operation with all the countries of the world who are willing to co-operate with us. In my opinion economic co-operation is absolutely essential if we are to lay the foundation for an enduring peace. I agree that where possible co-operation should be carried on within the United Nations, but where that is not possible it must be carried on outside that organization. We must always remember that when economic relations between nations are one-sided and unstable it is impossible for them to maintain mutual confidence and co-operation in other phases of their economic relationships, no matter how great or important may be those other phases of mutual interest.
In the present economic crisis of the free nations, any attempts to justify a given form of settlement largely upon the grounds of overriding political and military expediency are, therefore, in my opinion, based upon a fallacy. Unless economic settlements are both equitable and workable, the political and military efforts will be rendered not only impotent in themselves but will become provocative of friction. It is in the field of trade and commercial relationships that we encounter our greatest difficulties in this regard. I do not believe that cutthroat competition or indeed any other competition and co-operation can be carried on at one and the same time. I feel that the old concept of economic competition is impossible in the new world situation confronting us. In our economic dealings with other countries we shall have to keep in mind their welfare as well as our own. Any dealings not based upon that principle will not get us very far.

External Affairs
Today almost everyone believes that cooperation is good; that is, they believe in it in the abstract, or that it is good for the other fellow. A good example of that attitude appears in the conditions proposed by the United States when Marshall aid was first suggested to the countries of Europe. While believing in free enterprise itself, the United States virtually compelled the European nations to plan their economies, or in other words to co-operate in their economic activities. I want to make it clear that I am not finding fault with the United States for making planning and co-operation a condition of receiving aid. It was essential that this be done. The idea I wish to convey is that international planning and co-operation cannot stop with the countries of Europe. It must also include, at least among the Atlantic pact countries, the United States and Canada.
In his speeches both here and in Europe Paul G. Hoffman, economic administrator, never wearies of insisting that the people of Europe plan and co-operate. I do not know whether he realizes that planning and co-operation will not produce the results desired, that is progress and stability in Europe, if the largest and strongest nation in the western group does not participate fully in that co-operative effort. Mr. Hoffman spoke to the Canadian chamber of commerce in Montreal on October 27. His speech was reported in the Montreal Gazette of the following morning, and I should like to read a few words from that report because I believe they support the point I am trying to stress. Speaking of the attitude of the American people toward foreign aid and European affairs he said there was "sleepiness, apathy and wishful thinking" on the part of the people. Then he continued:
One would suppose that after two world wars and the threat of another, there would be little apathy about what was going on in the community of our neighbours. How much does it take to make us realize that we are living in an inescapably interdependent world? ' How long will it be before we understand that if we, the free nations of the world, want to avoid world war III we must stick together and work together?
It is not that we must fight together, but we must work together if we are going to avoid another world war. That, Mr. Speaker, is the point I wish to make in this debate, that we must work together for the good of each other and not each one for himself. That is as true of nations as it is of individuals.
Mr. Hoffman is only one of a great many prominent men who have recently made statements stressing the urgent necessity for economic co-operation among the nations if we are to get through this crisis, and if we

are to eliminate poverty and put our economic order on a stable basis. All these men do not use the same words, but they did stress the interdependence of the nations of the world and the necessity of co-operation.
As my next witness in this case, I should like to bring Canada's Minister of Finance. I am sure that members opposite and the members on my far right will be glad to listen to what the Minister of Finance has to say. I am reading from the "External Affairs Bulletin" for October, which contains a report of the speech made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) at the sterling-dollar meeting in Washington at which representatives of Qanada, the United States and Great Britain were present.
Referring to the origins of the crisis the Minister of Finance said:
As to their origins, we know that they are found, largely, in the upheaval on the various countries that took part in them. We don't forget that from 1939 to 1945 the people of the United Kingdom- whose present financial difficulties' bring us here- were mobilized for total war to' an extent not reached by the other western allies; and that the gigantic effort then made is a major source of the difficulties which they are experiencing today. We also know that when victory was won they did not relax. They kept on working. We in Canada pay tribute to that spirit-and to the magnificent assistance and encouragement given to it by the government and people of the United States.
The two things together make a fine chapter in the story of co-operation between countries. It would be nothing less than tragedy-from which only the men behind the Kremlin walls would benefit-if that co-operation in which Canada and I'm sure other countries would wish to share-could not be effectively continued in the search for a solution to the problems on our agenda. Certainly no solution can be found except through co-operative action-
One can see how often the word "co-operation" comes into the statement.
Certainly no solution can be found except through co-operative action-extending beyond this meeting. Such action means, of course, more than finding a solution which requires action only by someone else.
In recent months the western democracies have made great progress in building a structure for political co-operation, particularly through the Atlantic pact. In that pact, we recognize the simple but essential fact that an attack on one is an attack on all and that we will, individually and in concert, take the necessary action to restore and maintain security. That principle is as important in economic as it is in political co-operation. In fact, one may not be able to exist without the other. Economically and in the field of human welfare our fortunes are also linked and we go up or down together.
I should like to repeat the last three lines.
That principle is as important in economic as it is in political co-operation. In fact, one may not be able to exist without the other. Economically and in the field of human welfare our fortunes are also linked and we go up or down together.
I do not believe that anything could make the urgent necessity of economic co-operation as well as military co-operation more clear

than the words of the Minister of Finance. If there is not military aggression, the one will not be needed; but whether or not there is military aggression the prosperity not only of Canada but of the European countries- indeed of the countries of the whole world- depends upon co-operation amongst the nations.
Referring to another of the world's prominent people, I may say that Dean Acheson, the Secretary of State of the United States, spoke along similar lines at a meeting of the national foreign trade council about two weeks ago. He pointed out to the people of the United States-I should like the members to note this-that gifts of goods and money to other countries was not enough. He said there must be co-operation in trade. The United States must buy as well as sell if there is to be a balance in world trade and stability in economic affairs. May I say that here-in the matter of trade-is where the great difficulty arises because so many countries today are organized to produce the same things, to build the same things, or to provide the same services.
I am convinced that if we are to have any freedom of trade, it must mean more than the removal of trade barriers. We shall have to sit down with the countries of the world and decide what we are prepared to take from them in the way of goods and services, and what they are prepared to take from us. It will be poor economy, indeed useless, for us to be competing as to which one can more cheaply produce the same type of goods or, indeed, come to the point where goods are being subsidized in order that they may be sold abroad.
It would be quite easy, Mr. Speaker, to multiply many times the few names I have mentioned of men prominent in different phases of world affairs who are convinced that economic progress, if not the survival of civilization itself as we know it depends upon closer co-operation among the nations of the world than we have had up to now. That co-operation, let me repeat, must first be in economic matters. Political co-operation cannot long survive competition or a policy of everyone for himself. I stress this point now because it seems to me that we are approaching a new phase in international relations. The war co-operation and the pooling of resources for war purposes came to an end with the end of hostilities. Then came the phase of rebuilding the economies of the countries engaged with us in the war and of some enemy countries as well. We were also catching up on the shortages of goods and services in our own countries. I believe that stage, too, is about finished.
External Affairs
I do not mean that the damages of war have been repaired or the dislocations caused by the war overcome. We must realize that the productive capacities of the countries of Europe have now been restored to a point where, in some countries, it is greater than pre-war. As always happens under our system, it creates a struggle for markets. A struggle for markets must be resolved in co-operation. Otherwise the struggle for markets, if it does not lead the western nations themselves into war, will destroy that co-operation that has been so helpful from the beginning of the war to now.
Not only that-and this point also was mentioned by the minister in his speech- but we have to consider Germany and Japan, two former enemy countries. With the assistance of the victor nations, they too are building their economic and political institutions and have already restored them to such a point that, very shortly, Canada in concert with the other nations of like mind must, in my opinion, decide where those people are going to fit in the community of nations. Where will there be a market for the enormous production of the industrial capacity of the countries of Japan and Germany? These are questions that we must solve before we are sure of peace. Again, in my opinion they can only be solved through economic co-operation.
Some few weeks ago this parliament extended a warm and sincere welcome to Pandit Nehru, the prime minister of India. I was glad to note that the welcome he received here was repeated when he visited my city only a few days later. Perhaps no other visitor to that city has received a warmer and more spontaneous welcome than that which was given to the prime minister of India.
I should like to pause here just for a moment, because members of this house are sometimes critical of the present government of the United Kingdom. But I wonder whether we in Canada appreciate the service which the Labour government did for the democratic peoples of the whole world when they gave unconditional independence to India and Burma. Just think of what the situation would be in Asia today if that independence had been withheld or if India had gained her independence by force; surely we must all realize that the situation in Asia would be much darker today than it is. I would agree with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), although possibly not just exactly in the same terms, that the time is ripe for closer economic co-operation between India and Canada.

External Affairs
I am not pessimistic about the future. I do not say that I am optimistic either. But on balance, I believe there are in the world trends toward both economic and political co-operation. I do not think anyone could have heard the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) today without feeling that he also is thinking in that way. Any pessimism on my part arises from the fact that I fear that we are too lackadaisical about peace and war. I am afraid we have not nearly as much time as we think we have, and that we should move much faster in seeking the economic and political co-operation of other nations that think as we do. In that way only can we find a permanent solution to the difficulties of our time.
There are indications in that direction. In the Ottawa Citizen of November 11-that is Armistice day-there was a report of a conference held at Canberra, Australia, where representatives of Britain, New Zealand and Australia met to discuss "the extension of friendly relations as the best bulwark against any extremist or disruptive developments in southeast Asian countries."
The Secretary of State for External Affairs today mentioned the situation in the Far East, and he rightly said, I think, that we were interested in the east because of our Pacific coast as well as in Europe because we border on the Atlantic ocean. I wonder why we, as a member of the commonwealth, did not have a representative at Canberra. I think these meetings are just as important as any others; Canada has today just as many interests on the Pacific coast or in the Pacific ocean as it has on the Atlantic ocean.
I am just about finished, Mr. Speaker; I have only one or two words to say.


Gordon Graydon: Go ahead.


Angus MacInnis: I conclude by saying that
such items as the one I mentioned, the meeting in Canberra, give us hope because they indicate a new approach in our dealings with primitive and colonial peoples. Too long have we thought of such countries and such peoples in terms of natural resources and cheap labour, both to be exploited for profit. I hope that those days have disappeared and that, when we think of people, we will think of them as human beings, not as of some particular race, creed or colour.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: 
Mr. Blackmore:: That is the way they all do it.


Ernest George Hansell: I feel certain, Mr. Speaker, that the entire world situation has resolved itself into a struggle between communism and democracy. It is not enough to use the words "communism" and "democracy". Those words have been bounced around so often that they have come to mean all things to all men according to the individual using them. The words have sometimes been used deliberately to confuse and confound.
I ask the government: What do they regard as the meanings of these words? Does communism merely mean the governing of nations by men whose first loyalty is to Stalin? Does democracy merely mean the government of free nations, so-called, with free parliaments, so-called? To me the meaning is much deeper. When one once gets the deeper meaning, the struggle is seen in its true light and appears to be more intricately involved and more intense.
Right here I do not think I could do better than to quote from an article which appeared not long ago in Redbook magazine. This was written by J. Edgar Hoover, director of the federal bureau of investigation in the United States. In his article Mr. Hoover pulls no punches. No one will doubt that when Mr. Hoover writes an article for publication he means what he says. I quote:
The struggle between communism and democracy is more than a clash of political ideologies. It is the offensive of atheism against all forms of religions that base themselves on the belief in God.
Until we get that, we shall never be able to diagnose properly the extent of the disease which is beginning to grip the world. Perhaps it may appear that I am reverting to the practice of my profession when I speak in these terms; but may I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that at the opening of each session of this house it is your privilege to read a prayer which I believe is one of the greatest ever penned. I have tried in my small way to find out who penned that prayer and I have not been successful. In that prayer, unceasingly day by day, you pray on behalf of this house, "Thy kingdom come". Perhaps I might be so bold as to take you back to Holy Writ and show you where one of the greatest prophets of all time declared to the house of Israel: Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder.
Seen in that light, the struggle I believe, becomes one between satanic powers and God's righteous power. Fundamentally it is a struggle in this world between Satan on the one hand and Christ on the other, each having a program. The satanic program is for the

External Affairs
eventual setting up of a ruthless world dictatorship while the other program is designed to establish eventually the kingdom of God on earth. The spoils of battle are the very souls, the very bodies, the very hearts and minds of the human race.
What all men in public life must determine, yea what the government above everyone else must determine, is whether this or that movement fits into the one program or the other. When it comes to government policy we must ask: Does this aid and abet the program for the eventual realization of a world satanic dictatorship, or does it aid in exposing the enemies of men, and assist in the program for the eventual establishment of the kingdom of God on earth when government shall be upon his shoulder?
Perhaps right here I should read a further extract from the article by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. I want hon. members to notice this, because not only members of the government but every individual in public life, whether he be a government official, whether he be a teacher, whether he be a clergyman, or whatever he is, has reason to take note of these words. Mr. Hoover says:
To every honest student of communism, the evidence is clear and unequivocal that communism is anti-God, anti-Christ and anti-moral. Communism is religion's mortal foe. . .
No religion, denomination or sect has been spared the fury and contempt of the communists. God is their foe, and God's power over the civilized world is a barrier to their advances. The communist printing presses turned out thousands upon thousands of posters portraying God, Christ and religion in the vilest and most obscene manner conceivable.
The article goes on to bring out a point which I think should be impressed upon all public men and those who are interested in world affairs, and I quote:
Many communist fronts have operated under the guise of some church commission or religious body. It is ghastly to see the monster atheism being nourished in the churches which it seeks to destroy. Church leaders can stop this nefarious infiltration by taking vigorous action in the boards and commissions under church supervision. Individual ministers and church members can avoid being hoodwinked if they will stay close to the fundamentals of their faith. Any minister who cannot find in his Bible sufficient argument for the cause of liberty and social justice-who has to borrow the double-talk of the communists-is in the wrong profession and should' be carefully watched by his official superiors and by his congregation.
I for one in my capacity as a clergyman will say "Amen" to J. Edgar Hoover's remarks in that respect. When we are dealing with communism, we are dealing with a satanic force, the most powerful force on earth next to the almighty power of an omnipotent God. The struggle is one for world conquest. High ranking communists
[Mr. Hansell.i
regard no price as too high, no sacrifice too great, as long as they can gain the ends of their satanic attempts to frustrate and defeat the purposes of God for the full and complete redemption of mankind, and the establishment of the kingdom of God on earth.
I have read rather considerably about the investigations that have been made in the United States by their congressional committees and subcommittees as to un-American activities. Without taking the time to read from some of their reports, I will say that these committees conclude that the intellectual doctrine of communism has frozen and does not change. Let us remember that in all our dealings with this vicious force. The forces of communism in their essential principles and objectives never change. Tactics may, strategy may, but their objectives never change. When we think of communist forces in that respect our minds turn to the way in which they deal with political offenders. I am not going into all the details, but one cannot help believing that these communist forces are satanic when one reads of the recent trial of Cardinal Mindszenty. His trial was one of the most inhuman and ghastly pieces of work that have ever been perpetrated upon any human being. The amazing and ghastly thing is that it was done according to satanic and communist concepts in the name of justice.
Is the danger over in Canada? We have not heard a great deal about these forces since the spy trials of a few years ago. I trust that those responsible for law and order in Canada are not resting upon their oars on the assumption that, since they were able to round up a few spies and send one or two of them to the penitentiary, therefore all is well. In the United States recently several top-ranking communists were declared guilty of attempting by force to overthrow the government. I am afraid there may be a danger that even the people of the 'United States will sit back now that all the fanfare is over, rest upon their oars and say: Now we can rest easy. That is not the case because, if communism is as satanic as I believe it to be, they will not relinquish their efforts until they have eventually gained their ultimate objective. As the saying goes, eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
I turn now to another phase of the subject. I do not know how to view the recent reports that the United States of America is beginning to look upon Yugoslavia with some degree of favour. I am well aware, as we all are, that Tito and Stalin have had perhaps unpleasant words. Possibly matters have

reached a rather intense state between them. In his speech this morning the minister indicated as much, but even though that may be so, I wonder if the communist regime as such in Yugoslavia is any different to what it was in the days of Mihailovich. I for one would not presume to be qualified to say whether or not the United States should give aid to Yugoslavia, but we know that negotiations have been going on which indicate that the United States looks with some favour upon supplying war potential to Yugoslavia. I understand Yugoslavia has already applied to the world bank for a loan, in order to secure enough dollars under the world monetary fund. [DOT] I am not expressing an opinion now whether the United States is doing right or wrong. I must confess my inability to arrive at a proper conclusion. I wish to say, however, that whatever is done about the relationship of the United States with Yugoslavia, I am afraid that our close connection with the United States will mean that we may automatically follow suit. I say I am not qualified to decide whether it would be right or wrong, but if we do so we must do so convinced in our own minds that communism in its essential characteristics does not change, whether it be in one of the satellite states, whether it be in Russia, or whether it be infiltrating into any other nation in the world.
I now come to China. I do not know how to view the situation with respect to our possible relationship with China. The minister gave a rather extended explanation of the situation there, and I think it was a truthful appraisal. Somehow or other I cannot free my mind from its rather confused and puzzled condition concerning our relationship with China over the past few years. Not many years ago the members of this house welcomed Madame Chiang Kai-shek to Canada. We remember her standing at the Clerk's table with microphones in front of her. We welcomed her with open arms. I happened to take some motion pictures as she was entering the parliament buildings with the former prime minister, a former speaker, the Speaker of the Senate and other dignitaries who welcomed her to the parliament of Canada. I cannot help thinking of the glorious reception given to her then. When she went to the United States a great reception was also held for her by the United States government and the people of that country. A few years later the same Madame Chiang Kai-shek came back. She did not visit Canada on that occasion but visited the United States seeking aid for her 45781-118
External Affairs
husband's regime, and what happened? The United States turned its back upon her, and sent her home.
Well, we can say what we like about the ruthlessness of the Chiang Kai-shek regime. Granting that it was ruthless in many aspects of its administration, I only ask this: was it any more ruthless when Madame Chiang Kai-shek visited North America first than when she made her second visit? Just here 1 should like to quote a passage from an article I read the other day by George Moorad, who wrote "Chiang Kai-shek: A Patriot Departs." I am going to read only one short paragraph:
As for the charges of corruption in his government-
Referring to Chiang Kai-shek.
notably not against the person of Chiang Kai-shek but rather "the men around him"-a distinction between east and west must be made. Graft is the curse of Asiatic society, but if Stalin has been unable to shoot it out of soviet Russia, it is quite unreasonable to expect the weak Chinese to hold off invaders with one hand and clean up their Augean stables with the other. In view of his uphill struggle for Chinese independence it can hardly be argued that Chiang sought profit for himself or wilfully allowed corruption to thrive around him.
And later in this condensed article:
As for America, whether we approved of Chiang Kai-shek or not, we did not hedge our bets with any other policy. Our chips were laid entirely on Chiang, and as he departs so goes our hard-won stake in China.
I have noticed in the press recently considerable space devoted to recognition of the new communist government in China. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made only passing reference to this point in his remarks. Somehow or other it seems that pressure is being brought to bear upon the nations in order to have them recognize the new government in China; but I cannot help noticing that in these press dispatches there are singular references to the various financial interests that some of the western democracies have in China. Here is one reference in an Associated Press dispatch of November 14:
Hong Kong island was ceded to Britain in 1841, and she has a lease on the Kowloon peninsula until 1997. Until then, Britain's strained economy demands an effort to keep it, recognizing the reds could hardly make it harder to hang on, and might make it easier.
Another Associated Press dispatch from Washington under date of November 12 has this to say:
Several motives are said by diplomatic authorities here to underlie the British decision to establish relations with the communists.
Britain has extensive commercial interests in China . . .

External Affairs
Then further on:
There is some internal economic pressure upon Washington to recognize Peiping, but it is relatively small. Export-import firms and shipping lines in Pacific coast ports are urging recognition for business reasons,
I repeat that I do not feel qualified to say when Canada should agree to recognize the new government in China; but after reading these dispatches suggesting that China should be recognized because of certain financial stakes in that country, can it be that recognition of the Chinese government is to be speeded up by reason of economic investments and financial considerations? Let us pause and examine any contemplated recognition of the communist regime in China or anywhere else, as far as that goes, lest we sell our principles on the auction block of financial self-interest.
With respect to the recognition of China, I spoke to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), who is the leader of our national Social Credit party. I consulted him with regard to what formula we might propose for the recognition of new governments, and we came to this conclusion. The Social Credit movement favours diplomatic recognition of any country which has demonstrated (1) that it has a reasonably stable government; (2) that it has at least fairly well defined boundaries; (3) that it is independent of domination by any other country or force outside its own borders. Those are the three prerequisites we would require for recognition of any new government. My own view is that I would add another. I would say that should there be any shift of government following civil war, the new government should be given probation for a definite period of time, during which it must prove itself to be democratic in all essential principles, and its people free as we count men free.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that any diplomatic moves by our government or any other democratic government must be made with the greatest care. At the same time we must have vision and courage, and more than anything else the keenest sense of our responsibility toward the Creator of all men, our God, Who controls the destinies of worlds and nations and men, and Whose purpose is the establishment of a righteous peace among all men. Never was there a time when men talked so much of peace as they do today. And yet, never was there a time when men's hearts failed them so for fear of those things which are coming upon the earth. I plead with the government to move with the greatest caution in all that they do, particularly in the administration of their foreign policy. They should seek to determine a course that

will coincide with the purpose of God in the realization of His kingdom which we, at the commencement of every sitting of this house, pray shall come upon the earth.
If Canada does this, I am sure we can leave the rest to an all-wise omnipotent God whose purpose is the establishment of the righteous reign of His own Son when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, when He shall reign forever and ever.


William Joseph Browne: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to publicly apologize to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for interrupting him in the course of his eloquent address today.
I have already told him personally but I felt that the house was a little shocked by my interruption, and I am sorry it occurred. I was following the interesting remarks of the secretary of state so intently when he was discussing the position in regard to China and describing some of the conditions that Canada should have in mind in granting recognition to any government, that when he mentioned the "approval of the people of the country" the whole situation in Europe immediately surged to my mind. I felt like asking him in what country that is dominated by communism today have the people ever had an opportunity of expressing their opinion of the government that now dominates them.
If we are to begin with Russia and the countries that are described as satellites, in which minority communist organizations have controlled the major portion of the country, I do not think we can honestly find one country that could truly call itself democratic.


An hon. Member:: What about Czechoslovakia?


William Joseph Browne: I am glad my hon. friend has referred to Czechoslovakia. With that country in mind I went to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I told him that when I was listening to him I thought there was no country except Czechoslovakia which had accepted the communist government. The election in that country was rigged. I was under the impression, mistakenly, that Czechoslovakia had voted freely for the communist government. There are some who seem to be of a different opinion. I did not know anything about the elections being rigged, but there may be greater authorities on that subject than I am. There is no doubt about the other countries however, and there is no doubt that if the people of Czechoslovakia, after a year

and a half of the tyranny of the communists, had it to do over again they would not vote for the communist government.
I suppose most of the members in this house have been interested in this great Russian experiment in communism. I was glad to hear the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) and the member who just took his seat express sentiments that were certainly not in sympathy with communism. Although it is my feeling that socialism in all countries is likely to lead to communism eventually, there are many sincere socialists who detest communism. We have only to look at the experience in England to see how the British government ejected from the ranks of the Labour party those who had come out strongly in favour of communism.
I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the lucid statement he gave this morning. I am sure everyone thoroughly enjoyed such a clear statement of policy on behalf of our government. As the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) has said, it is a pity we do not more frequently receive information on these important matters. It was only the evening before last that I made reference to this subject when I said we would not think there was such a country as Russia in the world, nor would we think that China was now being overrun by a horde of armies which are supported by the government of Russia. I was glad, therefore, to have the opportunity of listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and to get his views on matters of such importance.
I believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs deserve congratulations on the manner in which they have carried on their duties at Lake Success. From what we read in the newspapers, there can be no doubt that they are up against hard-headed men who have a definite brief that they must take a certain line from which they cannot depart. This debate today affords us an opportunity of expressing our views on these important international questions. What seems to me to be most important of all is our attitude towards communism.
I believe, sir, that the mistake was made back in the days of Yalta. It probably does not do very much good to criticize two great public men such as the late President of the United States and the former Prime Minister of England. There can be no doubt about it, however, the initial mistake was made
45781-118i
External Affairs
when Poland was sacrificed to Russia. In 1940 I remember reading an article by Hilaire Belloc, who was an authority on international affairs if there ever was one, and certainly on European affairs. In 1913 he predicted exactly what was going to happen in 1914. In 1940, he wrote this:
"We shall win the war if Poland is restored to its former status with an outlet to the sea."
When the great men who were leading us at the time sacrificed the Polish people and divided up the country, giving half of it to Russia, that was the beginning of the present international troubles. The two great allies were then in the strongest position they ever were, because they had supplied enormous quantities of munitions to Russia to enable her to withstand the gigantic assault of the German armies. If Russia had not had that source of supply, who would be so bold as to say they could have won the battle of Stalingrad and driven the Germans from their country? When the Polish people were urged by the Russians to rise in Warsaw and drive out the Germans, Russia would not assist the allies in sending aid. This extraordinary situation and the failure of our statesmen to make better provision for Poland have resulted in the more complicated situation that seems to be developing from time to time.
I am sure every hon. member was glad to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaking about the conditions in Europe and the improvement in the western part of Europe. Last year and this year I had the privilege of visiting Europe. Last year in France I could see the beginnings of the work being undertaken there and could notice the energy with which the people were applying themselves to solving their problems. But this year it was obvious that great improvement had been made. Last year the people were in the throes of political troubles but eventually they got a government that lasted over a year. It was an anxious time' for the people of France when they found it so difficult to get a government that commanded the confidence of the chamber of deputies. But they did get one, and the year was a great help to them.
In Italy this year the people were in good spirits and certainly were working hard to try to re-establish their country after the conquest over the communists. I have often thought-and I have so expressed myself a number of times-that we in this country do not appreciate what a terrific menace to the world communism is. If I make some extraordinary statements in regard to the social

External Affairs
structure of this country, Mr. Speaker, it is because I have seen at first hand over in Europe the fear that exists among such a large proportion of the people of what a minority might do if, through force, it got into power. We sail along on calm and pleasant seas and everything seems all right. But we know that these other countries were strong and healthy ones at one time, under the capitalist system. What happened to them to turn them into communist countries today, or at least into countries where communism has been so strong? Not all hon. members, perhaps, are aware of the situation that exists today in France, where so many of the young people have turned their backs upon religion, do not practise any religion, and are therefore the proper soil for communist doctrine; because to my mind communism seems to grow more rapidly when it is set in soil that is without religion. Therefore the hon. member who has just taken his seat was right when he was saying how important religion was as an offset to communism.
Do hon. members recall the beginning of the United Nations at San Francisco four years ago when the dispute came up about whether in their charter they were going to say anything about the Christian religion or about Almighty God, and when it was decided, out of deference to Russia again, that nothing would be said about Almighty Ged on Whom we all depend? That was an initial mistake, and the troubles that have followed have been perhaps partly due to that cause.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made reference to Newfoundland on two occasions during his speech. He said that the airport at Gander was a great acquisition; and I have no doubt that it was a great acquisition to this country. It seems to me that our negotiators of confederation did not realize how strong a bargaining factor they had in their possession when they had the Gander airport. I hope that the negotiations that the Secretary of State for External Affairs speaks about will result in benefits to the whole of Canada, and to Newfoundland especially.
The bases were another thing about which we were worried and on which we criticized those who favoured confederation, because we were afraid that the Canadian government, if they took over those bases, would allow them to fall down. We are aware of the large amount of money-the hundreds of millions, I would say-which the United States government has spent in Newfoundland in order to build up these great bases. If the Canadian government took possession,

we were doubtful whether they could maintain them on the same scale or not; and I am certainly doubtful whether this government could do so. Certainly they could not have built them on the same scale as the Americans built them. I hope, however, that there will be friendly co-operation between the two countries and that a satisfactory solution will eventually be worked out.
The hon. gentleman referred to the visits that we had here from members of the United Kingdom government and to the importance of co-operation between that government and our own. There is no doubt about that. But I am not sure whether the United Kingdom government in its internal policy-with which I suppose we have not much concern- has been following a line that would eventually lead to good international understanding. The members of the United Nations are not supposed to be concerned with the internal policies of other countries. I intended to say that one means by which a country tries to promote good will among nations is by its representation abroad and by international exhibitions. I had the privilege of attending the international exhibition at Milan in April of this year, at which there was a Canadian exhibit. It was a fine affair. Although they did not have a large exhibit, Canadians could be proud of what they had there at that time.


Mr. Cruickshank:: Were there any British Columbia apples there?


William Joseph Browne: There was nothing from Newfoundland there. I inquired from those in charge of the exhibition whether they had anything from Newfoundland. They said no, that when they organized the exhibition they did not have time for that. I do not think there was anything there from British Columbia either. The exhibit from Canada was principally a fur exhibit.
There is no doubt that this country is certainly dependent, to a large extent, on friendship with the United States. This friendship that has lasted so long and has been cemented so firmly by comradeship in two great wars must continue to be the foundation stone of this country's foreign policy. Reference to the international border is, I think, a good guarantee that this friendship is going to continue. We all have many reasons for wishing that this friendship would become stronger; I have many personal reasons for that wish. Many of the people of Newfoundland have gone to live in the United States. It is said that there are as many Newfoundlanders in the city of Boston as there are in the whole of Newfoundland. There are therefore strong ties between our

little country and the United States, as I am sure there are between other provinces and that country.
It seems to me that the United States has not been given as much credit as it deserves for the tremendous work it has done on behalf of international understanding and the rehabilitation of the countries of Europe. The American people deserve the thanks of all peoples, and especially those of this country, for the way in which they have paid the money for this purpose. It is out of their pockets, out of their taxes, that they have subscribed this money to help to rehabilitate Europe, and on which this country has to some extent depended. Certainly the United Kingdom, which was in such a bad way, would never have been able to weather the storm so long as this if it had not been for the great help which she received from the United States; and I am sure that we all wish that help to continue.
Now, sir, I do not profess any right to speak on Asiatic affairs, but it seems to me that Canada, as the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said, ought to be just as much concerned with what is going on in the Pacific as it is with what is going on in the north Atlantic. When Russia gets control of China, as seems inevitable now, since Chiang Kai-shek has been refused aid, what is going to stop her from organizing this vast subcontinent of 400 million people in the same fashion as she has been organizing her satellite countries in Europe? When these are organized what is going to withstand the hordes of armies that can be created out of that vast population? It seems to me that we may have to fall back, strange as it may seem, upon former enemies for assistance. A famous United States professor told us in Newfoundland many years ago, before 1939, when he described what was going to happen in Europe in the second world war, that after it was over we may have to join up with Germany to fight against Russia. It may be that the forces of Japan and the Japanese people who are comparable to the Germans in Europe, resourceful people who make good soldiers, may have to be called on. We may have to utilize these forces if we wish to withstand the influence of communism in that part of the world.
As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said this morning, this country is only a small country when compared with other countries, and when it comes to war it is numbers that count. There is no doubt that this is a very wealthy country in proportion to its population, but when it comes to war numbers count in the long run. Russia has control of such a vast potential of war material that we have
External Affairs
to get allies wherever we can find them. I have no doubt that it is certainly in the backs of the minds of the western democracies that Japan will eventually be brought to our aid.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Would we need a pipe line then?


William Joseph Browne: Yes, we shall probably need all the pipe lines we can get. However, I am not an authority on pipe lines.
There is one other matter about which I wish to speak, namely, Spain. The name of Spain did not appear in the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this morning. We must recognize that Spain was the first country that stood up squarely to the communist menace, and although many people of socialist sympathies are inclined to condemn Spain outright as an authoritarian or totalitarian regime, bearing in mind the traditional form of government in that country, we have to recognize that the Spanish government of General Franco preserved Spain from communism, and perhaps preserved western Europe or the western world from communism as well. It was one of the ambitions of Lenin to light the fires of revolution not only in Russia but at both ends of the continent. Spain was to be the place where communism was to take root in the western part of Europe.
As most hon. members must be aware, the chief leaders in the satellite countries today, including Tito himself, were sent to Spain to organize communism in that country. Great credit must therefore be given to General Franco. I do not think he has had the recognition that he should have had for the work that he did in preserving Spain from the domination of communism.
As I said a moment ago, if we are to defend ourselves against communism, if that seems to be inevitable, at least we want to have all the influences we can get to help protect us from communism. In that event we must look for allies and Spain is one country with which Newfoundland has had most cordial relations for four hundred or four hundred and fifty years, almost since its discovery. She has been one of our best customers, and we have had a good deal to do with her from time to time. Her people visit our country every year to purchase fish. They seem to be very industrious and patriotic people. It seems to me that the United Nations must soon take up that problem again, grant recognition to Franco and send their ambassadors and ministers back to that country.
On motion of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) the debate was adjourned.

Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE Mr. Fournier (Hull): Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we shall continue this debate. I understand there is a lengthy list of speakers for tomorrow. If perchance we conclude the debate we will take up Bill No. 144, to amend the Combines Investigation Act, and probably resolution No. 24 on today's order paper in the name of the Minister of Agriculture.


Gordon Graydon: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether we might have some clarification from the government as to just how we are to carry on with respect to external affairs. Is it understood that, when this resolution is passed, immediately afterwards the committee on external affairs will be called, or will

it go over until next week regardless of when this resolution passes?


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: If the resolution should pass at one o'clock, there would be time in the afternoon, and perhaps in the evening, for a sitting of the committee on external affairs.


Gordon Graydon: If the debate goes on until tomorrow night, would it mean that there would be a meeting of the committee on external affairs on Friday? That is the point 1 want cleared up.


Alphonse Fournier: I am not quite sure. I shall be in a better position tomorrow to give that information to my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 17, 1949