1949-11-17

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

Mr. Macnaughion:: 1.	What is the name of the rentals administrator?
2.	Was he appointed by the civil service commission or by order in council?
3.	How long has he held this position?
4.	What are his duties?
5.	What salary or remuneration does he receive?
6.	Has he an expense account and, if so, what expenses has he incurred in each of the years he has been in office?
7.	Does he devote his full time to this work? If not, is he associated directly or indirectly with any business, professional firm or organization?
8.	To whom does he report?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	Owen Lobley.
2.	Order in council.
3.	Since January 1, 1944.
4.	To administer the rentals regulations of the wartime prices and trade board throughout Canada.
5.	$10,000 per annum.
6.	His actual travelling expenses have been
paid in the following amounts: January 1, 1944, to March 31, 1944, $917.16; April 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945, $3,120.20; April 1, 1945, to March	31,	1946,	$2,270.75;	April	1,	1946,	toMarch	31,	1947,	$1,872.92;	April	1,	1947,	toMarch	31,	1948,	$2,604.98;	April	1,	1948,	toMarch	31,	1949,	$2,991.95;	April	1,	1949,	to
November 12, 1949, $1,067.10.
7.	Yes. However, Mr. Lobley is a director of Windsor Hotel, Limited; Canadian Home Assurance Company; Lobley, Wanklyn & Co. Limited; and a member of the board of assessors of the town of Mount Royal.
8.	The chairman of the wartime prices and trade board.


AIRCRAFT PLANTS
Mr. Noseworlhy:: 1.	Has the A. V. Roe plant at Malton been subsidized or otherwise assisted financially by the government since 1947? If so, by how much each year since then?
2.	Has the de Havilland plant, near Toronto, been subsidized or otherwise assisted financially since 1947? If so, by how much each year since then?


Mr. Howe:: 1.	By terms of an agreement entered into in accordance with order in council P.C. 4436, dated October 3, 1947, the government agreed to contribute toward the cost of design, development and construction of two prototype model C-102 (jet) transport aircraft.
Upon completion by A. V. Roe Canada Limited of the two prototype aircraft, the government may take delivery thereof upon payment to the contractor of all reasonable and proper costs incurred in such construction, in excess of contributions made.
Contributions toward this project have been made as follows: 1947-48, $1,500,000; 1948-49, $2 million; 1949-50 (to November 15, 1949), $715,000; (1949-50 estimates provide for total contributions of $1,500,000).
2.	No.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES  WINNIPEG OFFICE
Mr. Maybank:: 1.	Do present plans of the management of T.C.A. contemplate a further removal of T.C.A. personnel from Winnipeg to other centres?
2.	Are any plans of any sort under consideration or contemplated by T.C.A. to affect the T.C.A. organization in Winnipeg


Mr. Howe:: 1.	No.
2.	No, except routine matters commonly associated with any efficiently operated organization.


Mr. Noseworihy:: 1.	What is the total amount contributed by the government of Canada to UNESCO each year since the inception of UNESCO?
2.	How much has been spent in each of the above years in Canada in implementing the program of UNESCO?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	1947,	$311,640;	1948,	$320,772;	1949,

2.	1947, nil; 1948, nil; 1949, nil.


TRANS-CANADA AIR LINES    REPRESENTATION OF WESTERN CANADA ON BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Has any further consideration been given by the government, since October 24, 1949, to representations from the Winnipeg chamber of commerce, asking that western Canada be given equitable representation on the board of directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines?
2.	If so, what is the result of such consideration?

External Affairs


Mr. Howe:: Section 6 (1) of the Trans-Canada Air Lines Act provides that the corporation shall be "under the management of a board of directors composed of seven persons". It is therefore not possible to act upon the recommendation of the Winnipeg chamber of commerce without an amendment to the act. The government has no intention of amending this act at the present time.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State if he will table an order for return, standing in my name, which was passed on September 29?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of State):: I will inquire into the matter.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: I should like to ask the Secretary of State a question with reference to sessional paper No. 53F, tabled in response to an order of the house for copies of all communications received by all ministers with respect to suggested changes in the Combines Investigation Act. I may say to the Secretary of State that on the front of the return it is indicated that the correspondence contained therein is that received by his department from the Department of Labour and the wartime prices and trade board. Actually what it contains is the answer of the Department of Labour and the answer of the Minister of Justice. In addition to checking up on that discrepancy, I should like him to find out whether or not there are answers from all the other ministers. That was the order of the house.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall be glad to inquire.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, November 16, 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.
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have the opportunity to congratulate a minister, not only upon his speech but also upon the policy he

enunciates. I find myself in substantial agreement with what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said yesterday. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) pointed out, our support may be embarrassing; nevertheless it is a fact. I have had the opportunity of visiting Lake Success on several occasions during the past few years. It has been most gratifying to realize the high position which Canada has among the nations of the world. It is attributable, of course, in no small measure to the efforts of Canadians themselves during the last ten years, to the high calibre of our civil servants abroad and to the present minister himself. Indeed I regard his appointment to the important position of chairman of the political committee of the assembly as a personal tribute to him as well as a tribute to Canada.
I should like to express my gratitude for the courtesy and co-operation I have always received from members of his department, and for the information which has always been so willingly given when asked for. Yesterday the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said he felt there was not enough publicity about our policies. That may be so, but I do not think the fault is entirely that of the department. Perhaps part of the fault lies with the Canadian daily newspapers, which give a regrettably small space to foreign affairs. This is something the Canadian Daily Newspapers Association might look into, rather than the minister. I have always received information when I asked for it. Sometimes it has been given in confidence, which I hope I have never violated any more than I have violated confidences in respect to information received in personal conversations with a minister.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out the successes the United Nations organization had achieved- partial successes, it is true-in Kashmir, Palestine and Indonesia, and we have to give the organization credit for those. Indeed it is obvious that had the United Nations not existed, we should have had to create it. But there was also the most significant failure of all-the failure of the organization to provide the security which the nations feel they need. If this failure was not met with the hopelessness and cynicism which followed the failures of the league of nations, perhaps the league did not die in vain. But today I think it is much more generally understood that the problem of international government, which has defied the wit of man through the centuries, cannot be solved merely by drawing up paper constitutions. However, since the United Nations could not provide us with the security we felt we required, it was

obviously the responsibility of government and of parliament to take measures to provide it in other ways, under the aegis of the United Nations organization. This we hope we have achieved through the North Atlantic treaty. We hope it will provide a measure of security which is not provided in any other way.
Yet while I agree completely with what the minister said yesterday about article 2 of the treaty, I cannot but underline what the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said as to the economic bases for peace. On occasions I have found the hon. member for Vancouver East to be wrong; but I have also found that when he and I agree on something, there is very little room left for argument. Article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty deals with international economic co-operation, while article 9 deals with the immediate establishment of a defence committee. A careful reading of the communique tabled in this house by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) on September 19, following the first meeting of the ministers of external affairs of the various countries signatory to the treaty, indicates that this question of economic co-operation was given but scant recognition. In paragraph VIII the communique states:
The council recognizes the importance of economic and financial factors in the development and1 implementation of military plans for the defence of the north Atlantic area.
That is certainly putting the cart before the horse, because if as the result of an economic collapse our allies in western Europe become bankrupt, there will be no military security whatever. Indeed our military security will be enhanced by the improvement of the economic conditions of those countries. I hope, therefore, that the minister will constantly endeavour to bring before the members of this group the tremendous importance of economic co-operation and collaboration, so that we may all play our part with the knowledge that we are strong economically as well as in a military sense.
Obviously the problem which obsesses the world is Russia. Members rose in this house yesterday and expressed their fear of communism. This fear, which we all share, is something that we as democratic socialists have known about for a long time, for we have no illusions about communism or communist parties. But the answer is not to be found by people standing up here or on other platforms, tearing their hair and rending their garments and offering no alternative. There has to be an alternative to communism if we are to survive. The alternative might be rather expensive, but I know of no other.
External Affairs
Communism breeds on hunger, on poverty, and on racialism. Just a few weeks ago the Prime Minister of India spoke in this chamber. When I heard Liberals and Conservatives, along with the rest of us, applaud, and quite rightly, that great world figure, the situation seemed to me to be ironical. I could not rid my mind of the thought that if Mr. Nehru had been a citizen of British Columbia three years ago these same Liberals and Conservatives, because of the colour of his skin, would not have seen fit to give him the vote. Now the wheel has turned with a vengeance, and I am glad of it. Mr. Nehru said in part, at page 1104 of Hansard:
There is another facet of this Asian situation to which reference must be made. The so-called revolt of Asia is a striving of the legitimate pride of ancient peoples against the arrogance of certain western nations. Racial discrimination is still in evidence in some countries, and there is still not enough realization of the importance of Asia in the councils of the world.
I do not think-at least I would rather not think-that those remarks were addressed to us in Canada. They may have been directed to another member of the commonwealth of nations-South Africa, where today the administration is carrying out a policy toward the native population which can only give aid and comfort to communist movements all through Asia. The racialism we see there is every bit as bad as that which existed in Hitler's reich, and every bit as dangerous. South Africa cannot plead that this is South Africa's business only; for questions which were once solely domestic affairs now concern the whole world and the safety of all. And it is quite conceivable that the attitude of Asia as a whole may be conditioned by what happens in the Union of South Africa. Already the coloured population have powerful champions, and I hope we in Canada will number ourselves among them.
On the same occasion Mr. Nehru spoke of the dire poverty which afflicted so many thousands, indeed millions, of the people of Asia. This dire poverty is a situation we have to face up to. Yesterday there was much reference to Christianity, and the fight between atheistic materialism and Christianity in this world; but the Christian faith can survive only when it can deliver the goods; when it can show that we mean business; when we can say that we are prepared to practise what we preach-and that is what we may find to be expensive. Anything which has been expended on the Marshall plan is but a drop in the bucket compared with what will have to be spent from now on. If we say that we adhere to the Christian faith, we have to accept its implications, the implication that there is the
1872

External Affairs
fatherhood of God, and therefore a brotherhood amongst man-and the natives of Asia are as much our brothers as anyone else.
The practical application of this belief means that if we have surpluses which we cannot use after our own people are looked after, and after we have sold what we can, rather than destroy them , we have to be prepared to give them away. It will pay us handsomely to be in a position to help alleviate the starvation in Asia and in other areas of the world. It will be expensive. There is only one way in which we can do it, and that is by taxing our own people. Already there are indications that we are going back to the situation which existed in the thirties when, rather than give food away, we used to destroy it. Already this administration has subsidized the apple growers, paid them to uproot trees which could have borne fruit to be given to those who needed it. The philosophy is still there; the mentality is still there.
Nothing will please the communists more than to realize that the western nations are prepared to destroy food which starving millions need. I repeat that it will be an expensive proposition to live up to our responsibilities, but it is the surest way of defeating communism. Communism cannot be defeated by great armies; for bullets can never destroy ideas. If we can show people that we have a better way of life than the communists, then of necessity we shall emerge victorious.
Russia is working not only in the areas of the mind, but also in geographic areas. I am reminded that yesterday the member for Peel spoke of the lack of information about our foreign policy. Information is lacking not only about our current policies but about history as well. Sometimes we are the victims of our own lack of perspective. In Europe today we see the beginning of a union among certain nations. They are advancing a little, but perhaps in the light of history the advance has been great. There is still impatience, however, over here at the slowness of the progress in this direction. We have to remember that the problems of Europe are rooted in two thousand years of history, and we cannot expect them to act with the same celerity as we might on this continent. It is a lamentable fact, but true, that they might complete that integration rapidly as a result of aggression, and perhaps then this union would become almost immediately operative. But it would be too expensive a price to pay for it; so we must approach the problems of Europe with sympathy and with some understanding.
We need not fall into the error, which is ours as well as Europe's, of believing that Europe is still the centre of the universe,
EMr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]
with the nations of the Far East on some dim and distant periphery. In deference to the Secretary of State for External Affairs I used that phrase "nations of the Far East" as a European colloquialism. Obviously the centre of affairs is shifting to the west. In this century the centre is going to be the North American continent. By the same token we must be ready to realize in years to come that the centre may move still farther west. We have to realize, too, that the rest of the world, perhaps the majority of the world, does not reason as we do. This in no way makes it inferior to us; but it is a fact which we have to face. Russia, India, Pakistan, China, and the other nations, look upon history quite differently from the way we do as a member of the western nations. They have not the same philosophy or the same attitude towards life, or indeed the same religion.
Some people in the United States-a minority, it is true-believed that a few years' military occupation of Japan would, in some mysterious way, change Japanese thinking. The statement of Premier Yoshida last week should rid them of that idea. One of our great tasks is to encourage the middle groups in many areas-the people who are struggling between reaction and communism. They are the groups known as democratic socialists. Last night the member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) said that socialism is likely to lead to communism. I believe that is a misreading of history because wherever communism is indigenous it has sprung not from socialism but from black reaction such as we saw in countries like Russia before 1918. In those countries where democratic socialism is strong, communism is at its weakest. We have to be prepared to encourage every movement which will lead to any improvement in the standard of living and literacy of the peoples of the world.
We have to realize that in some countries such a position may mean revolution. We are mortally afraid of that word "revolution," although we are the products of it. Our parliament and our democratic processes, our conception of freedom, are the fruits of revolution carried on by our fathers in the past. The liberty we have today is the result of the revolt against tyranny in England, France, and the United States, so perhaps there is something to be said for revolution. There is much to be said for those groups who are trying to improve the conditions of the people and to remove oppression so that communism may be held in check. If that improvement can be achieved only by revolution, I do not think we should fear it as much as we say we do. Yet we

are faced with the fact that among the major western powers the principal support is for reaction, and that support, of course, means that they are playing directly into the hands of the communists.
Many of us on this continent, as well as in Europe, are completely unable to understand why the allied forces in Germany are approving the appointment of nazis to high positions in industry. There is the situation in Greece to which the minister referred yesterday, and I must admit that I do not share his optimism. For some years that country has been torn by strife and I fear will continue to be torn by strife for some time to some. There was a guerilla movement in Greece, in many ways completely legitimate. It was made up not only of communists but also of democratic socialists, such as myself, and Liberals such as those on the opposite side of this house. They had to flee to the mountains because of the persecution of a tyrannical government. It so happens that they were taken over by the communists and their grievances exploited by the Kremlin. In an attempt to rectify that situation, the United States has continued to pour money into Greece, perhaps $300 million a year, hoping for reforms which would hold communism in check. The only result we have seen of that vast expenditure is the continued greed and avarice of the Athens group which is still in power.
Every move that Russia has made in Greece has been carefully calculated, even to the betrayal of the guerillas. Betrayal is nothing new in Soviet Russia's history. Of this I am certain; even if the great powers of the world get out of Greece, there will still be a struggle between the dispossessed majority and a reactionary government. Our policy should be one of hands off. It is a policy which we might have to change, however, if other nations continue to interfere in what is happening in that country. I find it difficult to understand, let alone explain to others to whom we speak of our democratic faith, just why the great nations of the western world support reaction while they talk so glibly about democracy. I find it difficult to explain the inconsistencies in British and United States policies which accommodate themselves with great ease to the non-democratic institutions of countries such as Portugal, Turkey, the Arab nations, and conceivably yet, Yugoslavia. I feel that our government must have some policy in regard to that matter, because, if we are to take the minister's speech at its face value-and I think we are entitled to do so-these are not policies to which we can give support.
45781-119J
External Affairs
In this review yesterday the minister mentioned that communism was not making headway in Europe-in France, Italy, Finland, and I think he might also have mentioned Norway where, on October 10 last, the Labour government was once again returned to power with a greater majority. Not only was it returned to power, but the eleven communists who were members of the previous parliament were defeated. We should remember that the borders of Norway are contiguous to those of the Soviet union and the communists there were not eliminated by repression -which incidentally will never eliminate communism. They were eliminated because of the constructive measures of the government designed to improve the standards of living of the people. As we have said so often, this is the only way to combat communism.
There are other sore spots in the world. There is the Middle East, where even yet there is neither security nor peace, and I do not think there ever will be until the conflict over oil is stopped and the conditions of the Arabs materially improved. It is true-and I welcome it-that Israel is now recognized by the world. But unfortunately the neighbours of that country are still pawns in the game of power politics. In the Middle East the strategic importance of oil is paramount. Some nations feel it is a struggle for survival because oil is so important to the modern economy. But it is also a struggle by private groups for their own profit. There is only one answer that I can see. Again I may be accused of suggesting interference in the affairs of other nations, but I feel that the responsibility eventually will have to be assumed by the United Nations by its creating a trusteeship over the oil resources of the Middle East. That trusteeship should be used to protect the interests of the people who have been exploited for so many years by feudal rulers, and also to see that all countries are given free access to the oil which is there. The United Nations has a commission just now studying the economic conditions in the Middle East. What it will report I do not profess to know, but I hope that a trusteeship such as I have suggested will be one of the recommendations made. Of this much I am certain: if the situation in the Middle East is handled properly, this question of security may settle itself.
What about China? I think we might almost paraphrase the words of a certain statesman and say that it is a great country of which we know but little. I do not share the minister's modified eulogy of the regime which is vanishing. Indeed, I give it little credit. Whatever credit there is I reserve for those tens of thousands of Chinese peasants who

External Affairs
died helping to make our cause victorious. What we see today is a venal administration, clad in corruption, rapidly disappearing; and its place is being taken by a Chinese politburo.
The western nations did not realize the strength of the nationalism which existed in China. The Russians did, and they capitalized on that feeling in China, just as they are capitalizing on it in other areas; and of course they have designed it as far as they could for their own ends. While I may be unduly optimistic, I do not feel that Russian nationalism will in the long run prove a greater or more powerful force than the indigenous Chinese nationalism. China is not yet under the direct domination of the Soviet union; it may never be. But it is certain that many of its rulers have great sympathy with the ideas of the Kremlin. There are also some who cast an eye toward the west because they realize the tremendous need for western help. Who will survive, we cannot tell. The tip-off obviously will be when the purges start in China, as of necessity they must.
The great need for China is industrialization. Yet from the point of view of national resources, if one excludes Manchuria, it is not a rich country. As I said before, industrialization is impossible without help from the west. We can count on this. Russian influence will be used to the utmost to eliminate foreign markets, so that they may cripple us commercially still further; and Russian influence may be used to prevent the Chinese, or certain of them, from appealing to the west for the aid which they need if China is to become an industrial nation. It is much too early to decide what is going to happen. The situation is confused and in no small way bedevilled by the equally confused and vacillating policy followed recently by the United States which has been costly not only in terms of money but also in terms of prestige.
As to the recognition of China, I do not think anybody would be brave enough to say when that should take place. It is entirely a matter of timing. Recognition must take place obviously at the moment when too great prestige will not be given to the regime, and yet before it is too late for us to capitalize on that recognition.
In the debate on external affairs eighteen months ago I spoke at some length on the aims and aspirations of Russia. I gave my reasons then for believing that Russia was not ready for war. I see no reason for repeating them. But the real menace in Russia today, in my opinion, is not entirely the menace of what for want of a better word we call communism; it is Russian nationalism, which is a legacy from Ivan the Terrible down through Alexander the Great to the last of the IMr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]
Romanovs. I am convinced that although the people of the Soviet union loathe the idea of war as much as we do, their leaders believe it to be inevitable. If that final tragedy of war should come, the atom bomb is going to be used and the results will be more appalling than any of us dares to contemplate. I agree therefore with General Romulo when he said in the assembly that "the means for controlling the destructive potentialities of this new force must be found", with the emphasis on the "must". This means that we must continue, with all the patience we have, to explore avenues of co-operation with the Soviet union. Mr. Vishinsky's hostile and insolent manner makes clear the tremendous difficulty there is of finding some common ground. Unquestionably, power must be on our side in a world of power politics. But in the long run that is not the best road to peace. Nevertheless, possession of adequate military power, and the additional moral power resulting from policies which are rooted firmly in our democratic and Christian traditions, may provide the time which is so necessary to break down the suspicion and the fear which besets the world. In the pursuit of that aim we Canadians have an increasingly important part to play.


Mr. H. A. MacKenzie (Lamblon-Kenl):: first want to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who has returned to us after his heavy duties at Lake Success in connection with United Nations work. I want to compliment him on the brief though comprehensive resume that he gave of his work there. I am sure hon. members appreciate to the full the involved and intricate work that they have to do; and it will probably become more and more involved and more difficult as days go by.
In view of the fact that several references have been made to the Chinese situation, I felt that I should say something in that regard. As many hon. members know, I spent a little over two years with the United Nations relief and rehabilitation administration. Approximately two years of that time were spent in the China field. I have always been interested in this type of work. The first intimation I had of it was when Winston Churchill, that great wartime leader, said in the House of Commons in Great Britain in 1940, and through the House of Commons to the world at large, and particularly to the people of the nations who had been overrun by the Hitler forces and were held in subjection to them: "Hold on; do not give up. The allies will win the war, and when victory is achieved and the war is ended the United Nations will bring you food, clothing, relief and rehabilitation." He invited all other

nations of similar views to join with him in this very large project. Consequently, after some meetings and after a good deal of correspondence and publicity the members of the United Nations met in Atlantic City on November 3, 1943, and that is where the UNRRA agreement and the UNRRA charter were drawn up.
Nothing of its kind had ever been attempted in the world before. There was no precedent to go by. They had to venture out into a new field. They had to do something for these people. At that meeting they agreed that one per cent of the 1943 national income of these nations would be a fair basis on which to work. Representatives of many nations were there. Later others came in, until eventually thirty-three nations that had not been invaded and sixteen that had been invaded by the enemy during the war became members of the United Nations relief and rehabilitation administration.
The amount of money that was contributed to that organization was stupendous. It amounted to something over $3,500 million in United States funds. Of course the United States contributed much the larger amount, because they had much the larger income. Of the total they contributed something over seventy per cent. Great Britain was second and Canada was third. Canada's contribution was approximately $150 million. Of the total amount of money that was subscribed, the largest amount was earmarked for China. It amounted to $530 million. The total amount of supplies shipped in to China under this rehabilitation program approximated three million long tons. That in itself was a stupendous task.
As hon. members know, China is a very old country. It has a history which goes back at least six thousand years. It comprises almost one-quarter of the world's population. The population runs anywhere from 450 million to 500 million people. Therefore we must admit that that country is possessed of extraordinary powers of stamina and resistance. After all these years, and in spite of famine, flood, disease and war, both foreign and civil, they comprise one-quarter of the world's population.
I was in that country almost two years doing UNRRA work. It would be presumptuous on my part to say that I know much about their problems, because a country with a civilization that old and steeped in tradition after all these years has problems that could not be solved by a foreigner going into that country and staying such a short time. A noted war correspondent, and later a press correspondent, was once asked to
External Affairs
write the bottom facts of China. He replied that there was no bottom and there were no facts.
I was assigned to the department of investigation and inspection, to see that the supplies that were sent into China were channelled through their proper courses and went to the places to which they were allotted and assigned, and to see also that they did not get sidetracked and on the black market. That in itself was quite a problem. It was a stupendous task because the transportation system of China was totally inadequate to handle that amount of supplies, and it had been further disrupted by the war.
In this capacity I visited many parts of China. I was intensely interested in seeing that these supplies did go to the place to which they were allotted and that the people did get the maximum amount of relief. I was also interested in the standard of living of the people, and in the type of government they had. I also wanted to find out, if I could, what had kept that vast body of people in such a primitive state as they had been all through these centuries.
I found that China was a country of approximately four million square miles in area. It has an area larger by one-third than that of the United States. It has thirty-four provinces, with a governor over each province, including, of course, Manchuria.
In the ordinary course of events the UNRRA supplies that were distributed in Europe were distributed through the municipal offices, the Red Cross organizations and other government agencies, but in China that was not possible. Therefore a different procedure was followed in China. The Chinese national government set up an organization of their own called CNRRA. They set up approximately the same kind of organization as UNRRA, and we dealt through the CNRRA organization. Fifteen regional offices were set up in places which had been devastated and war ravaged by the Japanese invasion. The problem was to distribute these supplies in the proper places. That was the first time that I had some slight differences with the CNRRA organization, whose function it was to see that these goods and supplies were distributed properly. Under the terms of the agreement with the UNRRA organization these supplies were to be distributed without discrimination as to race, creed, or political differences in the war ravaged and war devastated areas. The CNRRA organization was at times reluctant to send the supplies to the communist held territories, which after all had been devastated and ravaged the same as the others. With that in mind I worked in China. I must confess that I went to China

External Affairs
wholly convinced that the national government, which was headed by Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, was the government that should be reinstated and supported by other nations. After I was there a while I wondered whether that was true. I began gradually to change my mind, and often used to think of the Shakespearian play, Hamlet, where Polonius was saying farewell to Laertes and, not expecting to see him again, gave him this as his farewell warning:
Neither a borrower nor a lender be;
For loan oft loses both itself and friend,
And borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry: This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day.
Thou canst not then be false to any man.
With this in mind I tried to draw my own conclusions as to the exact problem in China, or as to what was the solution, if there was any. I did as the late General Stilwell did; I wrote my own diary, and wrote it carefully from day to day. I do not expect I shall ever publish it, but if it is published it will show what I saw from day to day.
During the week end I reviewed my diary to be sure that I had it correct. I will say that I could not believe such poverty could have existed-such privation, such hardship, such misery. I could not believe that such want prevailed anywhere in the world in the year of our Lord 1946, the first year I was in China.
Even the great city of Shanghai, the greatest metropolis in China, with many modern buildings-even in that great city the poverty was indescribable. It beggared description. According to their own census, they would pick up each morning the corpses of forty or fifty people who had passed away in the preceding twenty-four hours.
Another condition which brought about great misery was inflation. When I went to China in 1946, through the medium of brokerage offices and exchange shops one could buy United States dollars and gold bars. One could buy the British pound, but most of the business was based upon United States dollars. When I went there, one United States dollar would buy 1,200 Chinese dollars. The Chinese currency became more and more depreciated until it reached the point of 200,000 to one. When I left China late in 1947 the exchange rate was 500,000 Chinese dollars for one United States dollar.
This meant great privation for the people, because the price of rice was greatly inflated. People were not able to buy, because they did not have enough of their own devalued money. It became so bad that in many places shops were closed and commodities were not sold. In some places people would pay for meals when they went into restaur-

ants for fear the prices of the meals would go up before the meals had been eaten. The merchants raised or marked up the prices of their goods many times, even three times in one day. All this caused misery and hardship; it resulted in much suffering among the common people of the country.
I have kept in fairly close touch with China since my return. About a year after I came back the exchange rate stood at about eight and one-half to nine million for one United States dollar.
I found that illiteracy in China was prevalent to the extent of at least eighty per cent. I believe it is a fact that eighty per cent of the people in that great country are illiterate-able neither to read nor to write. They had no schools to go to, and no teachers to teach them. This fact in itself added greatly to the difficulties we experienced in supplying the people with the food and clothing, relief and rehabilitation contributed by the United Nations.
It must be kept in mind of course that the Japanese began their invasion of China as early as 1931, and gradually took over the country. They first took over Manchuria, and by 1945 nearly one-half of the total country was in their hands. UNRRA was the greatest humanitarian plan ever devised by the mind of man; there can be no question about it. To my mind it was a preliminary Marshall plan; it was a stopgap. It was merely to stop people going to the left in large numbers and forming themselves into bandits who would have entirely disrupted the country. It was a plan to bring people back to a normal way of living.
I was pleased of course to be associated with that humanitarian organization, one with such a fine background. We know some mistakes were made. It is true, yes, that some of the cotton sent over in 1946 by UNRRA to be used for the relief of the Chinese people never reached the people. In the main, however, it did. I believe there were something like 550,000 bales of cotton sent. It is true that some of that cotton reached the cotton mills, and some was used to make uniforms for the armed forces. It is true that about 20 million feet of lumber, the finest that could be purchased from California to British Columbia, was not used for the purpose for which it was intended, namely, the rehabilitation of the fishing industry. It is true that some of the food did reach the army.
All this was inevitable. But in the main the organization did succeed in what it set out to do, and many millions of lives were saved. Much hardship, suffering and privation was alleviated by the distribution of

supplies and the work done by UNRRA in the Chinese field. Let me say that the people of China did know where those goods came from and, in the main, were most thankful. They did appreciate the services and the supplies given by the United Nations.
Because of war some of China's potential production was lost. For instance, in 1935 she produced enough cotton for her own industry-something in the neighbourhood of two million bales. That supply, however, was pretty well dissipated and destroyed during the war. UNRRA brought over many tons of better types of cottonseed, types which would produce longer staple. This was distributed among the cotton farmers-in itself a worth-while contribution.
Many hundreds of tons of vegetable seeds were brought over, with the result that they were able to produce a much better type of vegetable, and were in a position to produce their own seed. I am convinced that China could increase her production by one-third if a proper system of fertilization were introduced and improvements were made in the types of seeds and in farm cultivation.
Another worth-while form of aid took place during the war of 1939, when a portion of the dikes of the Yellow river were blown out, with the idea of stopping the progress of the Japanese forces. This was an attempt to flood out the Japanese, and to drown them; but not many of them were drowned. In the Yellow river basin more than two million acres of the best fertile land were flooded and kept out of cultivation. One of the things UNRRA did-and it was a stupendous engineering task-was to rebuild those dikes so that the river might be returned to its former course and two million acres of fertile land brought back into cultivation to relieve the suffering and the hunger of the Chinese people.
A first-class job was done by UNRRA in connection with displaced persons. This organization undertook to bring back to their former homes people who had been displaced during the war. When the Japanese came, they carried away many of the Chinese to the inland areas to be used in the building of bridges and roads, thus virtually making slaves of them. These displaced persons had no means of returning to their homes; therefore UNRRA undertook to provide transportation, food and shelter during the period of rehabilitation.
In 1946 I visited some of these refugee camps where UNRRA was supplying temporary shelter, food and clothing to help the people return to their homes. I went with some of these refugees when they were being returned to their homes in Honkew, people
External Affairs
who had been separated from their families for several years. In most instances what they went back to was only a hovel, a mass of rubble; but they picked out pieces of their own furniture, took their bamboo poles and started to rebuild their mud houses with straw-thatched roofs. The re-establishment of these people in their homes was a most worth-while project.
I think the IRO took over the displaced persons program in April, 1947, and they have been carrying on since then. During the days of UNRRA operations, there were 800,000 displaced persons who had to be brought back to their former homes. UNRRA also undertook to transport Europeans who had been caught there during the war back to their own lands. When IRO took over in April, 1947, there were still some 11,300 Europeans waiting to be transported to their homes. Many of them were probably hard cores who could never go back, but a great many of them did, and have by now been transported to their own countries. There were also many thousands of Chinese still to be returned to their homes.
I knew Mr. Jennings Wong, the director of IRO, very well. He was a most capable Chinese, and I worked with him during the fisheries rehabilitation program. A year ago he asked me to go back to China and help him with the IRO program. He knew of my attitude to the then Chinese government, and was appreciative of it; we talked about it many times. In view of the situation in China, and the expectation I had of conditions becoming rapidly worse and worse, I sent him a cable and told him I could not go.
While a part of the rehabilitation project has not been completed, by and large the UNRRA program was a worth-while contribution, and did much to relieve the suffering, hardship and privation of the Chinese people. That is something that will never be lost, because it will be remembered for many years. The Chinese are a very friendly people. We made many friends among them, and they will not forget the work we did.
It seemed to me that the background of the Chinese people was that one dynasty would rule year after year until it became so weak and corrupt in its court life that another dynasty would overthrow it and come into power. The last dynasty that held power in China was the Manchu. It carried on until October 10, 1911, when that young revolutionist, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, upset the Manchu dynasty and set up his so-called republic. Since that time the 10th day of October has been celebrated as a national holiday and is called "double tenth day". There is national

External Affairs
patriotism, but a national viewpoint seems to be lacking when personal interests are at stake. In 1925 Dr. Sun Yat-sen was in Peking negotiating a peace treaty with the so-called communists of that day in order to establish a national government, but he took ill and died. In 1947 I visited Peking again. Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek came into power after Sun Yat-sen died, and he was president of the republic until a short time ago.
I remember visiting Peking in July, 1947, and I had lunch at the great Waggon Lee hotel there. I saw on the bulletin board that there was to be a Rotary dinner that day, and I went in and found they had a large club. Seventy-five per cent of the members were Chinese, and the remaining twenty-five per cent were foreigners like myself. The speaker of the day was Mr. Wells, a New York Times correspondent from Tientsin, and his subject was the economic crisis there. He spoke in English, because the ceremonies were practically all conducted in that language. He told us of the graft and corruption in the operations of the nationalist government in the city of Tientsin. In conversation with him afterwards he told me about conditions that to me were unbelievable. I could not believe that they could exist anywhere in the world.
While I know nothing about the personal integrity of Chiang Kai-shek, I understand from his friends that it is quite good; nevertheless I know that his government officials practised a policy of graft and corruption that was incredible to me. I have also visited many cities of China and met many merchants. I met Colonel Kearney, of the United States army, who was stationed there. He told me about many things that happened in the Chinese army which to me were inconceivable. When I went to China I understood that it was one of the great democracies of the world. According to my understanding and appraisal of democracy, it was as far removed from the principles and doctrine of democracy as it possibly could be. I could not conceive of conditions being as bad as they were. To me it was capitalism at its worst, where a few people controlled the whole policy and the rest lived in poverty and privation.
In my opinion Russia is capitalism in reverse; the people of Russia have lost their liberties and rights through a system of state socialism or communism. In both Russia and China it seems to me that the people are helpless pawns in the hands of their rulers. When I returned home in 1948 I told people not only in Washington but in Canada many times that I did not see how the then Chinese government could possibly win the
[Mr. Mackenzie (Lambton-Kent).J
war. That was the opinion I had formed after exhaustive investigations. I visited the merchants in many cities of China, men who had been Chinese merchants for years, and I asked them about the situation. They told me that they could not continue, that there would have to be a change, because they could not go on under present conditions. When I came home I suggested that the only way to achieve peace and unity in China was to follow a middle-of-the-road course.
When secretary of state George Marshall visited China in 1946, on several occasions he endeavoured to get the fighting forces together, and he almost accomplished it. I met many people connected with student bodies and democratic leagues, and I used one of the best interpreters available in order to try to get at the real cause of existing conditions. I found there was practically no support among the better thinking people for the government then in power.
What will the situation be under the present regime? That is something we probably cannot foresee. When I saw so much trouble, so much privation, and such terrible conditions, I said to myself many times: How can you support a government which condones, approves and contributes to a policy of feudalism, oppression, graft and corruption? How, in the name of democracy, liberty and Christianity, can you support such an outfit anywhere in the world? I could not do so. I do not know what will happen in the United Nations if the present regime in China should be recognized by Canada. It is two years since I visited China, and probably conditions have entirely changed. Many of the people I met in China were not pro-Russian, but antiRussian. They were afraid of the Russian regime, but they could not continue under the old set-up. If that is the condition today, as I am firmly convinced it was two years ago, then if you want to maintain some stability -and I believe there is some stability now- I believe the new regime should be recognized as soon as possible. If that is not done, the result will be to drive these people into the open arms of Russia, which I think would be disastrous. This is something, of course, the United Nations will have to take into consideration. I think I saw in this morning's newspaper that Mr. Bevin was going to consult with the other nations about recognition of the new government in China.
When I was in China, associated with this great international body, it had a personnel of about two thousand, most of whom were from the United States. Others, however, came from all over the world-from South Africa, from India, from Egypt and other countries. Most of them could speak a little

English. It was what we call pigeon English, but at least we could understand each other and could carry on correspondence. Invariably they would ask me: "What state do you come from?" When I told them I did not come from a state, that I came from Canada, without exception they replied, "We think that is a wonderful country to live in. We think it is the best place in the world. Unfortunately your immigration restrictions will not permit us to go there, but we would like to go." I am fully convinced that no country stands in as high regard among the nations of the world as Canada does today; and this is something of which we should be very proud.
Many factors have contributed to Canada's position in this regard-the stand Canada has taken at international conferences, where we have always adopted the middle-of-the-road course; the fact that we have no territorial ambitions of our own, and that we have always stood for the rights of the common people. I must confess that I had to leave the shores of Canada and go to a foreign land before I fully appreciated what this country should mean to us and what this country has to offer. I believe we have a better standard of living, greater security and a brighter future than any other country in the world. I believe we have the best form of government, and I think we should support it. It is true that we have not solved all our problems; but as long as the world lasts you will never get a government that functions one hundred per cent. If we want to halt communism; if we want to make sure that communism finds no place here, let us teach Canada to the children in the schools and the young people in our universities. Let them compare this country with Russia and her satellites, and I am sure they will appreciate that Canada really is the best country in the world.
Then when the revolutionary days are over-and they will be over-we will need all our intelligence to adapt ourselves to the conditions of the new era. I am quite sure I do not need to tell the minister that it will be a matter of compromise and co-operation- though you cannot compromise too much. I mean that there must be a certain amount of give and take, but it cannot be all give or all take. We should never give up hope, however, as long as we can keep the nations of the world around the conference table, as long as we can maintain some kind of co-operation. You will remember that the league of nations failed because one country after another left it and refused to co-operate. Then we had two separate groups of countries that strengthened themselves in preparation for war; and no doubt that is what we would see if the United Nations should fail. I repeat that
External Affairs
if we are to have peace in the world-and we must have it-it will have to be a matter of co-operation and compromise.
Many times I thought, when reading the late Wendell Willkie's book "One World", that if he had lived in China or India for any considerable period he would have realized that one world would not be possible in our time, but it probably will come much closer to realization in the life of this generation. In the United Nations we have racial divisions, we have differences of creed, we have economic conflict. But we have all those problems here in this country in some degree. The United Nations can draw up a basis of agreement, to be sure, but beyond that it is up to the individual people. We must support the United Nations, and must support its policies; for they touch the lives of all of us. Unless we live those policies in our hearts and souls and minds, unless we support that organization completely, it can never be a success.
In conclusion I urge that we make it our aim and ambition so to live, so to strive and so to serve and work that we shall be able to play our part in creating a better understanding among the races of the world and making a contribution toward the raising of the standards of living of those poor unfortunate people who are unable to help themselves without help from the European and western powers.
Let me close my remarks with a proverb I learned in China. It was written in Chinese, but I had it translated; and it went like this:
Where there is righteousness in the heart, there Is beauty of character. Where there is beauty of character, there is harmony in the home. Where there is harmony in the home, there is order in the nation; and where there is order in the nation, there is peace in the world.


Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinlon):: Mr. Speaker, during the course of this debate yesterday and today my mind has kept turning back to a scene in a third-year classroom at the university of Toronto some twenty-six years ago, when a young professor arrived to deliver his first lecture. He was very young; in fact he looked as though he might be an undergraduate himself. He spoke with a slight lisp; but he quickly commanded the attention of his students and, in a very short time, won their complete affection. I had the good fortune to be a member of that class; and the young professor who came to deliver his first lecture, in English constitutional history, was one Lester B. Pearson, who soon became known to all undergraduates as Mike. Little did I think then that he and I would today be sitting on opposite sides of this house participating in a debate of this nature.

External Affairs
li he will permit me-because I must still treat him with the deference that a former student must ever show to his professor-I should like to compliment and congratulate him on the admirable speech he made yesterday, in which he gave such a comprehensive review of our external relations. One thing I admired about it, in addition to its comprehensiveness, was that it was realistic and did not pull any punches, especially when dealing with the Kremlin menace which overhangs great sections of the world today. I thought it was refreshing to hear from the lips of the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs plain, bold truths, spoken without mincing words. It seems to me that is a refreshing and encouraging note in discussion of our international relations.
This debate, sir, is timely. I am one of those who feel that this parliament should have more frequent debates on external affairs. If we are to do our duty to those who sent us here, it is necessary to see that the Canadian people are provided with essential information concerning world affairs, so that great developments may not take place unknown to them, or cataclysmic and startling events burst upon them without warning. Such debate is necessary, too, so that the beneficial effect of public opinion may be felt in this chamber and in that way exerted upon those who are responsible for administering Canadian external policy.
Yesterday the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said something I do not intend to repeat but wish to concur in completely. He laid great emphasis upon the necessity for discussion in this house and for provision of the fullest information as to the developments in our external relations. A good example of that is the interesting speech which has just been delivered by the member for Lamb-ton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie). It brings to our minds this fact, sir, that our interest in the great events that are taking place in distant areas of the globe is not merely an academic interest. We listened closely to the hon. member's account of events in China, not as something remote from us, but, apart from the fact that he spoke from personal experience, as relating to events, unfolding themselves in China today, which have a direct bearing upon our life and our future in Canada.
As this world shrinks, and as Canada grows in strength and importance, so our horizons as citizens of Canada must broaden. This will be possible only if parliament does its share in shaping the thought of Canadians.
Mention has been made, sir, of the fact that in essence we have in Canada-I shall not say a nonpartisan foreign policy, but certainly a bi-, or tri-, or quadri-partisan foreign

policy. It is revealed in the speeches which have been delivered in this debate. It seems to me that has been one of the elements of strength in Canada's external relations in these eventful post-war years. The fact that the two principal parties at least have seen substantially eye to eye in matters affecting Canada's external policies has been a contributing factor of great significance in the rising importance attached to Canada's voice, and her position in relation to the other nations of the world. I hope that condition may continue. I feel it is the duty of every member of the house to strive to make it possible for our foreign policy to be continued on that level and not be drawn into the area of partisan conflict. This will be possible if between the government and the house-and when I say "house" I mean all parties in the house-there exist mutual confidence and a disposition on the part of the government to be thoroughly frank with the house on these subjects at all times.
With this thought in mind, I should like to echo what my colleague the member for Peel said yesterday in urging the government to make a clear statement as to the extent to which the government may have gone in any particular in committing itself in the conferences that have been proceeding in recent months following recent international treaties and agreements.
We are actually debating, sir, a motion to refer certain of the estimates, namely the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, to the standing committee on external affairs. I believe this procedure is worthy of comment, in view of one or two remarks that were made yesterday.
As one who has sat on that committee since it was first established in 1945, I wish to commend the procedure that the house is asked to approve. Not only has that procedure been beneficial in past sessions, but it has provided a vehicle serving two useful purposes. First, it has enabled the members of this house sitting on that committee to elicit more detailed information about the operation of the Department of External Affairs and the way in which government policy in relation to foreign affairs works itself out through that department than would be possible in the house. In the second place, it affords an opportunity for a more efficient review of the estimates and expenditures.
These two worthy purposes have been well served under the procedure that has been followed with respect to the estimates of this department. We welcome the opportunity for accounting furnished by this motion, and urge that the example be followed by ministers ol other departments in relation to other standing committees of the house.

My principal reason for speaking in this debate today is to lay before the members of the house some conclusions reached and some observations made largely in the course of my travels in Britain and on the continent of Europe a year ago. Since that time there has not been a debate in the house which would provide an opportunity for discussing some of the observations made on that tour, which in itself was a very interesting experience. With some other hon. members of this house, it was my good fortune to be one of the Canadian delegates to the commonwealth parliamentary conference which assembled in London in October, 1948. It afforded to the delegates an opportunity to meet some exceedingly interesting people in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and representatives from all parts of the commonwealth and the empire. After the conclusion of the conference, it was my good fortune to visit Greece, Italy, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Ireland, which at that time was still Eire. I do not pretend, sir, that that tour makes me an authority on this subject. If, however, the house will bear with me, I should like to share some of the experiences and some of the observations made in the course of that eventful tour.
In the first place, one cannot undertake a tour of that kind, coming in close contact, as I had the opportunity of doing, with Canada's representatives abroad-when I say "representatives" I mean not only those of ambassadorial or ministerial rank but the staffs in the embassies and legations-without a feeling of pride and satisfaction in the realization that the diplomatic side of the public service has attracted to it so many able men. I wish to speak now particularly of the younger men. This department had the good fortune to enlist the services of a large number of young men who came out of the armed services at the conclusion of the war. They are men with a good education, a clear mind and, in many cases, I believe they have a bright future before them. That has been one of the great advantages that Canada has enjoyed, because it has given vigour and clarity to our relations in the capitals of other nations. I hope that as time passes these younger men will be given encouragement, and will from time to time be appointed to leading positions in the diplomatic services as men who have earned those positions by right of promotion and by long service. I do not say that every ambassadorial post must be filled by a career diplomat, but I hope that as time goes on the young men who have been brought into the public service
External Affairs
in this field, and who have had the opportunity of developing, will not be denied the opportunity of reaching the higher posts in the diplomatic service of Canada.
I should like to say, too, that visits from Canadians, particularly those in public life, to some of the more distant countries I have mentioned, would be good for our representatives there and for those who have the good fortune to visit those countries. Particularly in the three Scandinavian countries that I visited I was told that few members of the Canadian parliament are ever seen there. May I say this to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope he will encourage his able deputy to visit as many as possible of these diplomatic posts abroad if he cannot do it himself. Firsthand contact will be extremely useful on both sides. It will be possible in that way to understand some of the immediate problems that men in the diplomatic service abroad, in all ranks, are facing. There are many acute difficulties as a result of exchange problems in these recent times.
One cannot visit Britain without a thrill of pride when one sees that, submitted as it was to the severest test that any nation in all history has ever undergone, it came through in such way as to fulfil the prophecy of Winston Churchill: so long as the world shall last, though the nation shall last a thousand years, men will say that that was Britain's finest hour. It is with sadness that one sees today the heavy price that that nation is still paying for her tremendous exertions and her almost unlimited sacrifices during the war.
As the minister has said, the commonwealth today can boast of increased achievements. Within the past year and a half we have seen the addition of three young partners to the list of the members of this British commonwealth of nations. They are old countries, but young members of this commonwealth. It was the great privilege of those of us who were delegates to the commonwealth parliamentary conference to come in close contact with the delegates from these new dominions. They were a most interesting study. The Indian delegation, for instance, was a strong one. In fact, one can say that about all those delegations. Nearly every one of them-and there was one woman among them-had a record of imprisonment sometimes aggregating a long period of years. Yet there was not in the conversation of one of them-and to me this was a most agreeable fact-the slightest trace of bitterness toward Britain. This surprised me, and I made it my business to ask some of these Indian delegates the reason. The answer was: It is due to Gandhi, because Gandhi always insisted that we were not

External Affairs
fighting Britain; that we were fighting against what we considered to be the imperialistic system, and Gandhi always insisted that there should be no bitterness.
It is an amazing fact, Mr. Speaker, that today those who are leading India into the new paths of self-government upon which she has entered are men whose minds, notwithstanding their experiences of the past, are, with hardly any exception, free from bitterness arising out of their past experiences. Their whole attitude could be summed up in this way: We thank Britain for this gift of self-government; we are determined to show Britain and the other nations of the world that we deserve this gift, and that we are going to make good. The same may be said of the delegates of Pakistan and Ceylon, although they have not had the experiences I have mentioned in relation to most of the Indian delegates.
In the light of events elsewhere in Asia, particularly in China, and events that may soon make themselves felt in the smaller countries south of China, it is of the greatest importance, not only to Canada but to the whole civilized world, that we should see rising on this subcontinent of India a nation dedicated to peace and to democracy, and representing the principal hope of the world today for the maintenance of stability in the Far East. There was a time when many people of the western world regarded China, because of her long record of faithful attachment to peace, as the hope of the future in Asia. But having regard to events that are occurring in China today, the thoughts of the world are being transferred to India as the principal basis for the hopes that we build of peace, stability and democracy in the Far East. We may be thankful for the vitality of democracy in that land, and the vitality of the belief in democracy that is shared by Mr. Nehru and the other Indian leaders who are following him so faithfully in their tasks.
Looking at what is happening there, is it not a thousand pities that Burma was so hasty in her decision, in view of what she might have been saved in the light of the decisions made at the prime ministers' conference in April last? She might have had everything she sought in the way of sovereignty and yet have continued to enjoy the benefits of membership in this great commonwealth.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned with regret the departure of Ireland from the commonwealth. I am sure it is a matter of the most profound regret to all Canadians that the government and the Dail of Ireland have not seen their way clear to remain as a sister nation in the

commonwealth. I simply make this observation on that departure. While in Dublin it was my good fortune to discuss this matter with the Prime Minister, Mr. Costello. I had the opportunity of meeting individually all the members of his cabinet, as well as Mr. de Valera, the leader of the opposition. The reasons that were given by the government for the course which it had then announced, and which became effective within a short time afterwards, do not reflect any ill will, either toward Britain or toward other nations in the commonwealth.
Mr. Costello said two things. He believed, first, that the step that was being taken would be a contribution toward better relations with Britain. In the second place, he said that it would remove, as a source of political strife, the question of relations with Britain, which had been exploited in times past by politicians there as a means of advancing their political interests. Just as we in Canada, to our great loss, have had racial and other differences basely exploited for political purposes, so in Ireland differences with Britain have been exploited for political purposes. We can only hope that there will continue to prevail that measure of good will which was professed by all the leaders of that country at the time they took their fateful step.
Europe is a fascinating study at any time; and I do not think one could have visited the countries in Europe I have mentioned at a time when a more interesting study would have been possible. Of the importance of recovery in Europe, particularly in western Europe, both politically and economically- and I may say spiritually as well-there can be no question. If the world is to tread the paths of peace and to be delivered from the uneasy mood under which it has laboured since the war, then Europe must undergo that restoration, political, economic and spiritual.
There are two bright rays of hope in the European scene. One is the fact that in some of the countries statesmen of great stature have arisen who are giving leadership to their people. In the second place, United States aid, both in the material sense in the way of money and in leadership, has been invaluable. No Canadian ever ought to underestimate the contribution that the United States has been making to the restoration of Europe and the preservation of democracy in western Europe.
One thinks, of course, of France because of its leading position. One thinks of conditions a year ago, when strikes and riots, precipitated by the communists, were being

aimed at the breakdown of government in that country-diabolical attempts which that nation has survived. France now seems to be moving into smoother paths, although she still faces formidable economic difficulties.
Belgium came through the war and entered the post-war period with her economy probably in better condition than that of any other nation involved in the war. The Netherlands suffered terribly during the war, and one of the great difficulties in working out a customs union between Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg has been the great disparity between economic conditions in Belgium on the one hand and in The Netherlands on the other. Progress has been made, and the good feeling among those nations augurs well for the future.
As to Italy, several of us Canadians who were there at the time had the opportunity of conferring with the Prime Minister, Mr. de Gasperi, and members of the Italian government. Italy has had a heavy struggle against tremendous economic and political difficulties. By those of us who may be prone to think of Italy principally in terms of her role as an enemy country in the earlier years of the war, and of the treachery and the perfidy that accompanied Italy's entry into the war under the hand of that villain Mussolini, this fact should be remembered: Italy today is led by a man who is a great democrat. Mr. de Gasperi was in exile throughout the twenty years of Mussolini's regime. He found exile in the Vatican; otherwise undoubtedly he would have ended his days in a concentration camp. After twenty years of exile in the Vatican throughout Mussolini's regime, he returned and is today taking a prominent place among the statesmen of Europe in leading his country forward. Italy has a tremendous population problem. There are two million unemployed in that country. That is the essence of Italy's great economic difficulty.
Mention has already been made in this house, and I do not need to dwell upon it, of the way in which the tide of communism has receded in Europe, in all the countries that I have mentioned, and also in the Scandinavian countries. In moving through the Scandinavian countries one was conscious of the fact that the communists are losing ground. Naturally I made it my business to try to find the reason. Everywhere I went I found from those with whom I talked- people in public life, members of the press and citizens-that the factor that made the impression upon those countries, which were countries attached to the democratic way of life, the thing that had opened their eyes to
External Affairs
the reality of communist aims in Europe, was what happened in Czechoslovakia. It was all very well for them to shrug their shoulders at what happened in Poland, in Roumania, in Bulgaria, in Hungary and in Albania, because those countries seemed to be far away, and all of them had not had the record of wholesome attachment to democratic ideals that had prevailed among the brave Czechoslovakian people. What happened in Czechoslovakia? The communists found their way into the government under the guise of colleagues, under the guise of coalition. They quickly grasped the key posts of power in the government. Then when the time was ripe, and acting on instructions from the Kremlin, they seized power. There cannot be any compromise between democracy and communism. Events in Czechoslovakia have proven forever that democrats and communists cannot work together in the same government. The events in Czechoslovakia contributed mightily to the opening of the eyes of the peoples in the democratic nations in western Europe, and not least of all in the Scandinavian countries. What has happened in elections that have occurred there since is simply the culmination of a process that was quite evident at the time.
A year ago today I was in Berlin. It was an amazing experience to be in that city of ruin. But probably more impressive than the ruin was the airlift. The airlift is not simply a closed chapter of history. The political significance of the airlift should not be underestimated by those who are shaping events in the world scene, and who are looking forward to what may happen in the days to come. It was a marvel of organization; it was a tremendous triumph of the western nations, Britain and the United States, over Russia in the cold war. I do not stop now to examine the technical features of it. It fell to the good fortune of a member of the other place, Senator Moraud, and myself to see this airlift in actual operation, to fly in on it to Berlin and out on it, to see it in operation, both at Gatow airport, which was used by the Royal Air Force, and at Tempelhof airport, used by the United States air force. On both fields freight planes were landing and taking off every three minutes. An aeroplane was taking off or landing every one and a half minutes, and all of them were controlled by one man in the control tower. It was our good fortune to be in that control tower, and to see this whole operation laid out before us. It was a costly operation, but it was successful.
There are those who say that a great mistake was made by the leaders of the allied powers during the war in planning for the

. External Affairs
joint occupation of Berlin. Well, sir, whether a mistake was made or not-and I for one am not convinced that a mistake was made- the fact of the matter is that, once joint occupation was decided upon, its continuance was essential; it was necessary that the western nations, which Russia was trying to push out of Berlin, should stand their ground. A decision of the most vital and far-reaching importance was taken in concert by Great Britain and the United States when they decided that they would stand their ground in the face of tremendous pressure exerted upon them by the Russians, deliberately exerted to force them out, and thus to cause loss of prestige to the western nations in eastern and middle Europe, and also to snuff out the flicker of hope still entertained by the peoples in those countries that some day they might live to recover their freedom; and to show them that their hopes were in vain.
It was a triumph of unity between Great Britain and the United States. Not only did it preserve their position in Berlin; not only did it preserve the hopes of those who were outside the iron curtain that the western powers were still strong enough to stand up to pressure from Russia, but it has served to keep alive behind the iron curtain the hope of those unfortunate, unhappy people that the day will come when they will recover their freedom.
That triumph of the airlift has been responsible, to a greater extent than has been recognized, for the fact that it became possible to enlarge the scope of the Brussels pact into the North Atlantic treaty. I think the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will bear me out when I say that the strong stand of Great Britain and the United States, their show not only of strength but of will to stand up to the Russians in that situation, was largely responsible for creating in the minds of the smaller nations of western Europe a willingness to enter into military commitments with the stronger nations and to make this North Atlantic pact an effective and comprehensive instrument of policy on the part of the democratic nations to restrain further Russian aggression in Europe.
May I digress to say that I hope, before he closes the debate, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will say something further to the house about whatever efforts are being made to pursue the drafting of the peace treaties with Germany and Austria.
One is conscious of the tremendous difficulties. One is conscious of the fact that the western nations must certainly keep alive a loyalty to the cause of democracy, and the

support that democratic leaders in Germany enjoy from the people of Germany today.
I am not commenting on just how deep that loyalty is, or how quickly it may be lost; but I am sure that those who are responsible for directing the external policies of the western nations are alive to the necessity of strengthening the hands of the democratic leaders in Germany today. I had the opportunity of talking to some of these democratic leaders in Berlin, and learning the feelings they harbour as to the uncertainties facing them if their hands are not strengthened.
In the very few moments remaining to me I should like to say something about Greece. All too little is known in the western world about what has been happening in Greece. If more were known, less would be said on the part of some to the effect that what has occurred in Greece since the war has been merely a civil war. I spent some days in Greece-not simply in Athens? but also up in the battlefields of the north. We were taken to Janina; there we were within view of the battleground of the Grammos mountains where a very important battle had been fought against the guerrillas in April, 1948.
What has happened in Greece has not been a civil war. It is true that large numbers of the guerrillas were Greeks; but that was no cold war: that was a hot, shooting war, and that force of guerrillas had foreign help behind them. Russian planes were supplying the guerrillas who were fighting in large numbers in the difficult mountain areas of Greece. It was the communist countries to the north of Greece- Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania-which were harbouring those guerrilla forces, supplying them with bases and hospitals, and seeing that they were armed with everything they needed to make their incursions into Greece from those bases.
Their methods were the typical communist methods-diabolical in the extreme. When they raided the villages they shot the men who would not consent to being conscripted into the guerrilla ranks. Their homes were destroyed, and their children were abducted by the thousands and carried over the border to the communist countries to the north. When I was in Paris-where, I may say, I was treated with the greatest kindness by the Secretary of State for External Affairs- while the United Nations assembly and the political committee of which the minister is this year's distinguished chairman were in session, I heard the Yugoslav delegate complaining in the strongest terms against the action of Mr. Trygve Lie, the Secretary General, who had banned the showing, under

United Nations auspices, of a film which, the delegate said, showed the conditions under which Greek children were being reared in the schools of Yugoslavia.
Those children had been taken from their homes, from their parents in Greece, by these communist raiders, and carried across the border to the communist countries in the north. They were to be reared there and filled with communist hatred and communist doctrine until they were old enough to bear arms. Then they were to be sent back to join the guerrilla forces for the purpose of overthrowing the lawfully constituted government of Greece.
I wish to say something about democracy in Greece. If free discussion in the parliament of a country, the utmost freedom on the part of an opposition to attack and to criticize the government, is a true badge of democracy, then there is democracy in Greece today. Half a dozen of us Canadians were accorded a reception in the parliament of Greece, something for which we must always be thankful. We saw there with our own eyes the kind of debate that was taking place. I can tell you that there was no pulling of punches on the part of opposition members in that house. There we saw democracy working in an elected chamber, just as it works in this chamber, with the utmost freedom on the part of members of the opposition to speak and to criticize.
Greece holds a most strategic position in the world today. If Greece had fallen behind the iron curtain, the whole balance of power in the world would have changed, throwing the eastern Mediterranean under the power of Russia in that vital area where Russian policy has been trying to advance Russian influence for the last two hundred years.
The brave people of Greece have suffered great privations. Their attitude is one of profound gratitude to our nation for the gifts of wheat and other supplies from this country, through the Red Cross, and the Aid-to-Greece fund operating with the Allied War Relief fund. These gifts actually rescued that whole nation from the verge of starvation, because when the Germans moved out they took everything with them. They took all the medical supplies; they took all the food. They denuded the hospitals and other institutions of healing in the same way.
It filled us Canadians who were there with pride, to receive on every hand an unrestrained expression of gratitude from the Greek people to Canada for what this country has done. There is no more grateful people in the world than the people of Greece. It filled us with pride to see the Greek people standing on the streets of Athens and cheering when
External Affairs
the car of the Canadian ambassador drove by flying the Canadian red ensign. General LaFleche has done great work there. He has been a very popular figure in Greece.
I hope we shall hear in this chamber no word of criticism-although I thought the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) came very close to it today-I hope we shall hear no word of criticism of American aid to Greece, because it was that American aid that has made it possible for the Greek people to expel these diabolical communist guerrillas from their midst, and give the people the chance, which they have been denied from the time war burst upon them in 1940, to rebuild their country and walk in the paths of peace. A great task of reconstruction awaits the Greek people who have suffered so much, and have earned our admiration and our gratitude for holding fast the gateway to the west against the invaders from the east.
Then, sir, this is my final word: whatever may be found disappointing in the international situation; whatever may be the misgivings of some in view of our disappointments, particularly in the security council of the United Nations, failure, should it come, must never be the result of any defection on our part from these institutions or the ideals they represent. The obligations we have undertaken are sacred to us. No matter what others may do to dishonour their obligations, ours must remain inviolate.
As we survey the uneasy present and the dark past I think we can all take fresh heart when we remember that there is committed to us as one of the western nations the cause of freedom, the cause of the dignity of man, the cause of honour and fair dealing among nations.
At one o'clock the house took recess.
The house resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. R. O. Campney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that every hon. member of the house is grateful indeed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for the clear, frank, comprehensive and informative survey, which he gave us yesterday morning, of conditions as they exist today in this troubled world. It was a sombre statement. There was not much ground for optimism, certainly none for overoptimism, but there were rays of hope and encouragement here and there, for which we are all thankful. I think also that in the course of giving his review the Secretary of State for External Affairs impressed each of us with the fact that the conduct of the external relations of Canada rests in very capable and

External Affairs
understanding hands. Lastly, I am sure that we were all impressed, as we listened to him reviewing world affairs, with the tremendous responsibility which he carries as the responsible minister, and which this government or any other government carries in the field of international relations today.
In rising to make a few remarks-incidentally, the first which I have made-I do not propose to try to resurvey world affairs or even to deal with questions of high policy. I should like to undertake a much more humble task. I should like to speak for a short time about the Department of External Affairs itself because I believe it is a department of vital importance and concern to our whole future, and that its history has contributed a good deal to the development of our nationhood.
I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that the work of the department is not as well known as it should be, but I cannot agree with him as to the reasons. If I understood him correctly, I think he attributed the situation to a lack of education and publicity on the part of the government, and to some sort of attitude that possibly the department had a selfappointed aloofness. I do not think either of these reasons is correct. I do not think either of them is the reason why the department is not adequately known, appraised and appreciated.
In my opinion there are two reasons for this condition. In the first place I think a specific interest in external affairs on the part of every individual is hard to establish and maintain except in relation to the broadest terms of policy. After all, every man has his duties and responsibilities, and he is quick enough to appreciate anything the government does that affects him. If taxes are raised you do not have to worry about publicity; but if somebody propounds that the Secretary of State for External Affairs possibly is not taking the right position in regard to something that happened a month ago in Pakistan I do not think people become greatly enthused about it. We tend to leave these matters in the hands of the government. We tend to leave consideration of these matters to others because we cannot hope to keep up day by day with the facts on which judgment must be based.
Second, I think the Department of External Affairs must, almost of necessity, be a somewhat silent department. It is an advisory department; it collects facts and information and advises the ministerial heads of the government. Its service to Canada is an indirect one. I do not think it can be put in the same position as, for example, the Department of

Public Works and the Post Office Department, which touch on tangible things that concern most members of parliament, and probably most people throughout the country. Nevertheless I believe that the department is doing an outstandingly good job.
I should like to point out that the work of the department and of its responsible heads day by day is most exacting. They must deal with a multitude of varied and complex questions which must of necessity be dealt with promptly and effectively, and frequently without any clear idea ascertainable at the time as to what the ultimate effect may be, because in foreign affairs the world is never static. It is changing every day, and the department and its responsible heads must keep abreast of every development and try to interpret it. Therefore it seems to me that the actions of the responsible heads of the Department of External Affairs must be the responsibility of the government which has to be judged and approved in the final analysis. I think that is true of other countries. I do not think therefore that the government or the department is open to criticism of any kind as to that phase of the matter.
The Department of External Affairs goes back a long way. It originated out of confusion because each department of the government was writing its own letters to different departments of other governments in the world. Sir Joseph Pope, who was under-secretary of state at the time, and who had been Sir John A. Macdonald's private secretary, in order to bring order out of confusion suggested that some department should be created to handle such matters, and he prepared a memorandum of which I shall read only a couple of sentences. It seems almost quaint now in the light of what has happened since that time. This is what he said in 1907:
I recommend that a small staff of young men, well educated and carefully selected, be attached to the department which I have advocated, and that they be specially trained in the knowledge and treatment of these subjects. In this way we shall acquire an organized method of dealing with international questions which at present we wholly lack.
Two years later, in 1909, forty years ago, that recommendation was followed and the Department of External Affairs was created. It was then a mere adjunct of the Department of the Secretary of State. It had a small staff consisting of one deputy minister, two chief clerks and four clerks. It was little more than a channel of external communication, but soon after it was formed it was attached to the Prime Minister's office and he became Secretary of State for External Affairs. In this particular I do agree with the hon. member for Peel that we might well

find a less unwieldy title. The department continued growing steadily until 1946, when a separate portfolio was created which was assumed by our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). He continued in that portfolio until 1948, when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was appointed.
In the meantime the department has grown from its inception in 1909, until now we have over 170 highly trained and specialized technical officers, and a staff of over 800, operating through twenty-three embassies and legations, seven high commissioners, numerous other special representatives, and many consular offices.
I should like to pause for a moment to pay tribute to the under-secretaries who have made this great development possible. Because he was a close friend of mine, first of all I should like to pay tribute to the late Dr. Skelton, a very able, self-effacing and industrious man, who literally worked himself to death in the service of this country. He was succeeded by Mr. Norman Robertson who, as we all know, has represented us as high commissioner in Great Britain, then by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, and finally by Mr. Arnold Heeney, whom we all know. I wish to pay tribute to these men for the work they have done. I think Mr. Mackenzie King should be regarded as the father of this department whose estimates are now before us, since he was in charge of its development during the formative years.
Prior to world war II these estimates were not very large, amounting to perhaps six, seven or eight hundred thousand dollars a year. Today, leaving out the extraordinary expenditures, they amount to about ten million dollars, or about one-half of one per cent of the total estimates of the country.
For a moment or two I should like to examine what we get in return for this expenditure. Perhaps we could put it in this way, that such expenditure is supplementary to our vast expenditures for national defence, which I suppose we must regard as the cost of our police force. These estimates, it seems to me, might well be called an insurance premium against the risk of war; and, like all insurance premiums, they carry no guarantee. However, it is the best we can do and offers the best protection open to us. It enables us to pool our risk of war with the other nations of the free world in what we might call an international Lloyd's and I think it gives Canada an outstanding opportunity, as events have proved, to work in the interests of peace and security, which are the keystones of our policy.
External Affairs
It enables this government, representing this country, to contribute effectively and continuously to the diplomatic effort now being put forward-the cold war, if you like, in which we are desperately engaged-in the hope that we may later avoid a shooting war in which we and all the other peoples of the world might perish. This is a bitter struggle; the stakes are great, and I do not think any other department of government bears the heavy responsibility that is carried by the Department of External Affairs.
The greatest field of its activities, of course, is within the United Nations organization. We all realize, with some sadness, that that organization has not fulfilled to any major degree the high hopes held when it was formed; but our hopes still live, and we dare not let them die. Yesterday I was pleased when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said he believed-and he should be in the best position to know- that the United Nations had strengthened rather than weakened during the past year. That is a heartening and encouraging statement.
Now let us look for a moment at the contribution made by this government, working through the Department of External Affairs, to the work of the United Nations. In the formulation of the charter at San Francisco; in the deliberations of that organization year after year; on the atomic energy committee; on the security council; on the economic and social council; and now through our chairmanship of the political committee, this country has made a contribution second to none and in my opinion far greater than that of any country in the world at all comparable with us in either size or population. In passing I should like to observe, and I believe all hon. members will agree, that the election of our Secretary of State for External Affairs to the chairmanship of the political committee was no accident. It was a tribute to this government and this country, and a personal tribute to the great qualities of the man himself.
A number of specific phases have been mentioned in which this country has given active leadership; but for a moment I should like to deal with only one; that is, the drawing up of the North Atlantic pact. Who contributed to the success of that effort more than or even as much as our present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)? No man gave more of his effort in the early days of the United Nations in an endeavour to establish the rule of law throughout the world than our Prime Minister; and when he saw that was going to be impossible of attainment at least within the appreciable future he threw his

External Affairs
energies, and this time with success, into the formation of what we call the North Atlantic pact, to provide collective security in this area. This was a new departure; it broke new ground in international affairs, and in itself was a practical step forward which may lead to other steps should the United Nations fail in its over-all objectives.
I had the privilege of attending one of the assemblies of the league of nations as secretary of the Canadian delegation. That was a place where I could never find in authority anyone whose thoughts matched the realities. It was a very pleasant, platitudinous place, but they did not tackle serious, practical problems. Whether it succeeds in whole or in part the United Nations has moved one step forward, because no one can accuse it of being platitudinous; no one can accuse it of not facing up to the problems. I think the North Atlantic pact may yet stand as one of the great contributions made within the organization of the United Nations; and with that contribution our own country, through the efforts of the present Prime Minister, has been closely associated.
There is another point about the North Atlantic pact I should like to emphasize. It is not merely a military alliance, which was the old method of entering into mutual defence pacts. It provides also for complete economic co-operation. About a year ago the Prime Minister put it in these words:
We must get clearly Into our minds the fact that a security treaty will not be fully effective if it is nothing more than a military alliance. In order to create and maintain an overwhelming preponderance we must have on our side not only military strength but also economic and moral strength.
That represents to me, Mr. Speaker, the highest order of international statesmanship, because it marks a new step forward in the close association of the free nations of the world. It was accentuated yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he said:
We must bring about the widest possible economic collaboration at the earliest possible date.
So I say this government is certainly taking its full part, and more, in the strenuous battle to establish peace and security in this troubled world. In that connection the minister said yesterday:
Canada has made a good and effective contribution, and her prestige stands high among the nations of the world.
To my mind that was sheer understatement. I think he might have said, had he not been too modest, that Canada has made an outstanding contribution, and that her prestige stands very high in the world today.
[Mr. Campney.l
Finally, I believe the department has indirectly made a great contribution to the growing unity of this country and the development of our nation. Our active participation in the United Nations organization I believe has brought our people closer together than ever before, has made every Canadian feel a greater pride in his country, and has stimulated the Canadian spirit to the point where the development of this country and its vast resources has begun to move forward at an unprecedented pace.
It is an historical fact that after each of the two world wars Canada, by reason of her policies, the valour of her armed forces and the energy of her participation, took a marked step forward in her influence in international affairs. I think it is equally historically true but possibly not as well known that every extension of Canadian influence in the field of world affairs has been inevitably followed by a corresponding forward step at home along the road to nationhood.
Following world war I, Canada was admitted for the first time to a peace conference in her own right. We won our own representation at the league of nations. We won the right to enter into treaties on our own behalf and to establish our own representation abroad.
These developments in the field of external affairs were paralleled at home by a whole series of constitutional developments which culminated in the Statute of Westminster, which marked the final stage of transition from a colonial empire to a commonwealth of independent nations.
Following world war II our progress in the field of world affairs is well known to all. The forward steps in this field are again being paralleled in this very parliament and at this very session by changes in our constitutional set-up. I refer to the change in the status of our supreme court and the change in the method of amending our constitution. These changes are following a pattern. We seem to make headway first in the field of international affairs and then we catch up at home.
The increasing importance of our country, owing to its outstanding participation in world affairs as we move along the road of destiny, is due in a large part to the important role played by the Department of External Affairs. In a sense, that department is becoming the mirror in which Canada is seeing herself in her true proportions for the first time. If I am right in that, the

modest estimates of the department which are the subject of the resolution before the house probably represent the most fruitful [DOT]expenditure which this house will be called upon to approve.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to extend any more compliments to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am afraid that he may think he has the problems of the world settled. I believe he deserves the tributes that he has received this morning, but I should like to remind him that he has to return to Lake Success and face Vishinsky and a few other people who may not believe all the things we have heard about him in this chamber. I appreciate the difficulties facing the minister, but I believe he is a great improvement over what we previously had in external affairs.
For some time there was no Secretary of State for External Affairs and the department was pigeonholed with the Prime Minister. He had very little time to devote to the many complicated problems that are involved in international affairs. As a result of that not many discussions such as we are having at this time took place. I have listened attentively to the discussion so far. This morning we heard two addresses and, without detracting from any of the others, I believe the addresses of the member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) and the member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) gave us the picture from a practical standpoint.
The member for Lambton-Kent gave us a description based on his personal experience. I thought it was valuable. It is worth reading. I was rather surprised at my friend the member for Eglinton, and quite pleased. I believe he justified the existence of the parliamentary association. Because of a trip he was able to take through the medium of that association, he was able to give the house a complete, and I think fair, picture of what he saw in the different countries he visited. It was an encouraging picture. His report, and he is always inclined to be quite critical, was to the effect that progress is being made despite a lot of the press statements to the contrary. I believe the house owes something to the hon. member for the effort he made this morning. It was a fair and reasoned approach to the whole problem. The hon. member even gave credit to the government where credit was due, something that is very unusual for him. It means something, coming from him.
I should like to express my own thoughts on this particular subject. First, I should
External Affairs
like to say that since the end of the war I have thought there has been too much stress placed on war. A reading of the newspapers of the United States and Canada would lead one to believe that we are on the verge of war, and that war is inevitable. I believe that is far from the truth. Since the end of the war, my thought has been the other way. I believe that one of the greatest instruments for the maintenance of peace in the future is the United Nations organization. It is an organization that is working under great difficulties. We realize that. I have heard opinions expressed that the old league of nations failed and the United Nations is going to fail. The old league of nations did not fail. In my opinion, an ideal was sown at that time and the league struggled under great handicaps. It was hamstrung and betrayed in the work it was attempting to do in that period in which it functioned. Nevertheless the idea was sown and it is as a result of that idea that the United Nations is functioning today. It is benefiting from the experience of the old league of nations.
I said the United Nations was working under difficulties. Perhaps one of the main reasons for those difficulties is the lack of understanding between Russia and the western world. This is largely due to the propaganda that was disseminated during the war. For many years before the war the people of this country were led to believe that Russia was everything that was not right. Then Russia became our ally in the war, and immediately the propaganda machine in this continent went into reverse. It went out of its way to lead the people of North America to believe that Russia is a fine country. For some time the press was filled with stories that Russia was not irreligious, the churches were free. We all remember those statements. Even J. S. McLean of Canada Packers travelled around the country raising funds for Russia. That was only a few years ago, and today the people you are trying to convince that Russia is disturbing the peace of the world are the people this propaganda led to believe that Russia was a fine country. The man on the street is now wondering where he is going to draw the line of demarcation between propaganda and fact. That is one of the difficulties with which the United Nations has to contend at this time.
Various members have made suggestions that we are not receiving sufficient information about what is happening at Lake Success. I believe that is correct. When the minister returns to Lake Success, perhaps he

External Affairs
could see to it that everything that happens there receives full publicity in this country and the United States. Unfortunately it is impossible to get the story through to Russia. If we can keep our own people on an even keel and dispel the illusion that war is inevitable, in my opinion that will go a long way toward the maintenance of peace in this world.
There is a great deal of controversy about what the United Nations is doing and what it is not doing. In my opinion it has failed in two respects. First, it has failed to put into operation the machinery that was provided by the charter. I am not saying that is the fault of anyone because there have been difficulties in that direction. That is what made the North Atlantic pact necessary.
In discussing the charter we in this house were led to believe that an international police force was going to be set up. The military staffs of each country, under the supervision and direction of the security council, were going to get together and, on a per capita basis, were going to establish a police force that would supervise the peace of the world. I know that, as far as we are concerned and as far as the United States and the other countries within that body are concerned, that would have been done. Russia has been the stumbling block in that direction.
Then the illusion is created in the minds of a great many people across the country that the North Atlantic pact is something that has not anything to do with the league of nations, that it is an instrument that has been built by warmongers in order to make war on Soviet Russia. That opinion is current in some sectors of our society. But that is not true either. The North Atlantic pact was made absolutely necessary because of the failure of the United Nations, because of Russia's opposition to forming the international police force which is to provide the machinery if and when it is set up. The Atlantic pact is an outgrowth of the United Nations. The charter makes provision for the setting up of regional pacts if that is necessary. Hence the Atlantic pact is set up, and I am glad that it is; because in linking up the nations that form that pact for economic and military purposes, it is a step in the right direction. But in my opinion that machinery should go a little bit further.
While there is a certain amount of economic arrangement within the North Atlantic pact, in the United States and Canada I think there is a growing opinion that not only should it be a military and a partial economic pact but that we should go further with that machinery and that there should be an alliance of the nations that are set up today,
[Mr. Gffiis.l
a union of these countries, for all purposes. Following that idea to its logical conclusion, I think that eventually within that structure we should perhaps have a common currency, and trade arrangements which would eliminate many of the difficulties we are having today. That opinion is becoming strong in the United States and in many sections of Canada where people are thinking and reading; because the future of the world on the road ahead is, in my opinion, within the structure of those united nations in following through these ideas.
Another place where I think we have fallen down is in implementing the machinery set up at Bretton Woods for the purpose of stabilizing currency and developing backward countries. These principles were enunciated in the Atlantic charter. They were discussed in this house and all over the country. To Bretton Woods were sent the ablest men in finance in Canada, the United States and in every other country. My friends in the Social Credit party say that the Bretton Woods agreement failed. But it did not fail. It was not tried.


Mr. Blackmore:: It could not be tried.


Clarence Gillis: The international bank and the international monetary fund were outgrowths of the Bretton Woods agreement. The fund was established. The forty-five nations that are now members of the United Nations are members of that international bank and international monetary fund. Some $750 million was subscribed, but that bank has never functioned. If it had functioned for the purpose for which it was intended, we would not have had devaluation of Britain's currency. We would not have the mess there is in certain parts of the world today if we had accepted our responsibilities, through the medium of that financial machinery, to develop backward countries and to give them a chance to get on their feet. The Marshall plan has, to some extent, done that; but it has not been a united effort on the part of the forty-five nations that are members of that international bank and international monetary fund. As for myself, I think that particular subject has been overlooked; at least, I cannot find that it has been discussed at all in the United Nations.
I am merely making these observations to direct the minister's thoughts to these points so that when he goes back, in addition to attending to his many other duties, he can try to do a little bit of thinking about them and to interest in them someone who happens to be on the committees that have to do with subjects of that kind. But definitely I think

we must get our own people in the United States and Canada down to more basic thinking.
Then as to this business about China: I have heard it discussed here and I had heard it discussed before I came here. Many people say that there is a move on foot now for Britain to recognize China and to do business with her. My suggestion is this. What else can she do under the circumstances? She has possessions at Hong Kong. She is standing there facing an army that conquered China. Is she going to precipitate a war on that country? I should like to leave this thought with some of the members of the house and with some outside it. China today, in my opinion, is not being invaded from the outside. She is taking the only course that is left open to her. If we stop and think for a moment, we realize that, for six or seven years before the last war broke out, China was standing practically alone fighting the invasion of fascism from Japan-bombed, starved, and all the rest of it. Then in 1941, when she was in desperate straits, somebody closed the Burma road on her and thereby closed off the only route through which she could take in supplies and carry on resistance. After war was declared by Germany, Japan was supplied with scrap from this country. China has been in a terrible mess; and the people of China today are taking the only means by which they can provide themselves with some security, a means of livelihood and a means of developing their own country.
I see them taking that position because there is no other road out for them. Chiang Kai-shek is trying to maintain the status quo. While I have heard some hon. members defending his regime, yet there are some pretty black pages in that regime when it comes to ruthlessness and all that goes with it. Let us not get the idea that China must be isolated. In my opinion she took the only way out of her present difficulties that she could. We have to come to an understanding with her.
With regard to Russia, let us not forget that it was dictatorship, tyranny and everything that goes with it that compelled these people to seek the only way out. I have no quarrel with them for what they are doing in their own country, because they never had freedom, they never had democracy. Eighty-five per cent of them are illiterate, and they have practically no standard of living. They took the only way out in their own country. Where I quarrel with them is in what they are trying to do outside their own country. I have nothing but contempt, and have had nothing but contempt for the last twenty-five years,
External Affairs
for anyone who calls himself a Canadian or an American and becomes an ally of that particular kind of organization within Canada But let us not forget that it was hunger, poverty, the absence of security, and misery that drove these people in the direction in which they are going at the present time. There was no alternative for them; but there is on this continent. We have to demonstrate to the people of the outside world that we are prepared to see their problems as they really are and do what we can to help them restore freedom in their countries.
There has to be a lot of basic thinking and a lot of careful talking on these particular subjects. I am not unmindful of the fact- and of course most of the hon. members are not-that while today, on this continent, we have the highest standard of living in the world, and our mass production is unequalled, yet we must not forget that it is not many years ago that Britain was in that position. Our resources are not inexhaustible. In the not too distant future, in terms of generations, we may find another continent giving world leadership. India and China have vast sources of wealth. These countries, with their millions and millions of people who are just beginning to tap their resources, may become world leaders. We have to understand one another and try to work together. In my opinion the United Nations is providing that leadership. We are fortunate in having the man there that we have. I believe that our present Secretary of State for External Affairs, with his background, his knowledge of international affairs over the years, is contributing in a valuable way to that end. I hope that he does not develop the complex that we are a little country and that we should not have too much to say; because one man who is honest and knows where he is going in that organization, whether he represent a little country or a big one, may be able to sell to the big countries ideas that will stick in the future. I think we have in that organization a man of whom we can be proud. I hope he does not get a swelled head and develop a statesmanship complex. I like to think of him as just plain honest Mike. I hope he remains that way.
The difficulties that are being created are exemplified in a little editorial which I picked out of the last issue of the Western Co-Operator. I am not going to read it. In this editorial it is stated that a man in the United States by the name of Armstrong had $50 million which he wanted to give to a certain university with the stipulation that no negroes or Asiatics were to be admitted. He was to write the bylaws of the university. The university was to do what he asked. That is the old Hitler complex. It is quite difficult

External Affairs
for a man to sit on the United Nations organization under present world conditions when that kind of stuff is sent abroad. Here is a man who is a big industrialist. He is very influential in the affairs of the United States, and he comes up with a proposal of that kind. I can hear radio Moscow picking it up and saying: "Here are the people who are looking for co-operation. This is the kind of thing that they are doing behind the scenes at a time when they are making a lot of promises within the United Nations organization."


Mr. Graydon:: Thank goodness, the university turned it down.


Clarence Gillis: I do not know about that. I hope they did. Nevertheless a thing of that kind does the whole country a disservice.
I do not want to delay this debate any longer. I merely wanted to express my opinion along these lines. Through the United Nations we should try to do a job with the international monetary fund. We should try to make it function. I believe there is a solution there for the difficulties of world currencies. If that bank were working properly it could do a good job there. It is staffed well. It has made a good start, but it is not functioning as it should. If it were it would go a long way toward helping the people in the backward countries. These were the principles upon which we fought the war and it is upon these principles that we established the structure of the North Atlantic pact. It is an idea that is workable. It is what made the United States. It is the same pattern. There is no reason why we cannot do it on an international scale. There is a large body of public opinion in the United States and Canada in favour of it now. We should go forward with it carefully and see that it works properly.


Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of Ihe Opposition):: One thing that has been very noticeable in this debate has been the obvious spirit of agreement that within this chamber there should be no difference of purpose in regard to the objectives of this country in relation to the very simple but very ominous threat that faces us and faces the rest of the world. Probably at no time has the responsibility imposed upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or the corresponding members of government in other countries, been heavier than it is at the present time. It would appear that never before have the issues been so clearly in focus as they have been during this past year, and they seem to be becoming more clearly in focus all the time.
Everything that has been said since the Secretary of State for External Affairs gave

his very comprehensive review of the position of his department and the basis upon which the Canadian government is approaching these great problems today has been an attempt to contribute something to a greater appreciation of various aspects of this problem. And everything that has been said has been more with the hope of adding something to a general appreciation of this great problem than to be critical of any point of view that has been expressed, or to minimize in any way the significance of the summary that was made in this house yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is from that point of view that I should like to emphasize some features of the present situation which I believe all of us should bear in mind in expressing our opinions now and in seeking to play our part in awakening a lively public interest in the subject that we are discussing, and in creating the opinion in the minds of the people of Canada that this is the business of every Canadian; and that the whole future of Canada, as well as the future of free people elsewhere throughout the world, will depend upon the extent to which people themselves, who still have the greatest concern about what happens, devote their thoughts to this subject and express their opinions as to how they think world events should be faced by the government of this country in the years ahead.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has outlined the situation with which the countries are confronted in view of the attitude of the representatives of Russia at this time. I should like to underline the words "representatives of Russia at this time". I do not believe that the people of Russia themselves are reluctant in any way to establish a basis of friendship with the other nations of the world if that opportunity were only open to them.
Unfortunately under the system of rigid dictatorship which has been imposed upon the 200 million people of Russia itself, and upon more than 500 million others throughout the world in these past four years, there is little opportunity for the people to know what other people are thinking. Unfortunately the people of Russia, and those others living under communist dictatorship elsewhere, are unaware of the fact that throughout the free world the people in that free world want nothing more than an opportunity to demonstrate their real friendship for the people of Russia, and of every other country in the world.
Unhappily it would not serve the purposes of the communistic dictatorship to let their people know that this spirit of friendship does exist; and consequently not only is a

barrier being created between them and the free world, which prevents access to their country by the people of the free world, but equally they are preventing people living behind the iron curtain from knowing anything about the way the rest of the world really lives, and what the sentiments of the rest of the world really are.
There is one feature of the present situation which it does seem to me is too reminiscent of what happened in the years before the last war. It is a feature which perhaps is not discussed often enough in approaching the problem we face today. When the nations which had been joined in arms to destroy the military power of Germany and Germany's associates in that war met at San Francisco before the war had actually ended to draft a charter which would provide a working basis for co-operation between those nations which had been associated in that terrible conflict on the side of freedom, the very beginning of that charter was the proposition that every nation had the right to choose its own form of government, and that no nation in the world would have a form of government imposed upon it by any outside power.
That was the foundation upon which the whole concept of the charter of the United Nations was drafted. It applied to Russia just as it applied to China and as it applied to every other country which signed that charter. It was also intended ultimately to apply to those countries which were then ranged as enemies against the nations whose representatives met at San Francisco in 1945.
As we discuss the external affairs of this country today, and our association with the nations of the Atlantic community in an effort to preserve their freedom within the circumstances which now confront us, it is essential that we remember how far that basic proposition has already been denied. We are not simply in a position where we are preventing Russia from denying it. Russia has already denied it; she has repudiated that proposition and has carried aggression to a point far beyond what Germany had done up to the outbreak of war in September of 1939. And we shall not be facing reality unless we keep that truth in mind.
Russia is not only today threatening the freedom of the western world both by its accumulation of military power and by its fifth column organized in every free country, but also has already imposed its will by force upon one nation after another which had no more desire to submit to communist dictatorship than we have here in Canada
External Affairs
today. The Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia are countries with a tradition of freedom, countries which have demonstrated a love of freedom which makes communist dictatorship no more acceptable to them than it would be to us.
Poland throughout long years had cherished a love of freedom and had asserted that love in the struggle it had made against Germany in 1939. It would always be well for us to remember that in September of that year we did not go to war as a free people by our own choice because our soil was attacked. We went to war because Poland at that time had become the symbol of the right of every nation to have its own form of government and to have its own territorial integrity respected. This country went to war when Poland was attacked because we, along with other free countries, recognized at that time that if aggression of that kind was permitted to carry forward its terrible course, it would only be a question of time before the right of any nation anywhere to have its own form of government would be destroyed. And as we see Poland today, under the iron heel of communism, at this very hour undergoing one of those purges directed from Moscow, which means that any pretence of legal authority is hypocrisy of the worst kind, we might well bear in mind that it was the attack on Poland in 1939 that brought the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and the other parts of the great British fellowship into this conflict.
Then, as we look at the other countries throughout Europe which have been placed under communist domination, whether they had democracy or not before that form of government was set up, at least they had their own form of government. And under the United Nations charter-the very first chapter of it-they had a right to have their freedom respected and to have their own form of government chosen by themselves.
One by one we have seen Roumania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, along with other smaller nations, brought under communist control and dictatorship from the Kremlin. It is not likely that more than ten per cent of the people of Czechoslovakia at the very outside supported even to a limited extent the ideas of communism prior to the time that the dictatorship was set up there early last year. That is a warning as to what can happen elsewhere, and as it happened in Czechoslovakia it is well for us to remember that when communism came to Russia in 1917 less than two per cent of the people subscribed to communist doctrines or were

External Affairs
members of the communist party. A small compact minority with military power has demonstrated what it can do in any land.
During the last year the greatest tragedy since the war has taken place and China has been brought under communist domination. In the review of the situation which was given to us yesterday, it was indicated that there would be certain requirements which must be fulfilled before the communist government of China could be recognized. As I understand, one of them was that there should be evidence that this was a government that was accepted by the people of China. We have no way of testing the acceptance of a communist government in any land because once a communist government is set up acceptance of it is not a matter of free choice but is enforced upon the people by rifles and machine guns, and every device of suppression known to man. Therefore, if that is to be the test, I submit there can be no recognition of the communist government of China.
The pattern is clear. The government there will, as in every other land, still be a government subservient to the Kremlin, and if in any country the people should seek to assert their national beliefs as something separate from international communism undoubtedly it will be greeted in the same way as the assertion of that right was greeted when the communist government of Yugoslavia expressed the simple belief that they were first of all Yugoslavs, and that they did not believe the communist doctrine meant they must of necessity submit to controls from the Kremlin. These events are moving so fast that not one of us can see clearly yet what may happen in Yugoslavia. Any one of a number of events may occur. In any case, it is unlikely that things will just stand still.
Although we detest communism as a doctrine, I imagine that every Canadian will welcome the assertion of Yugoslav pride in their own national integrity, and will hope that the people of Yugoslavia, under whatever form of government they have, will be able to retain control over their own affairs free from domination by the Kremlin. If they succeed in doing that, then it may well be a hopeful and encouraging sign to those other lands now under communist governments that they too can do the same thing. Step by step, if nations are able to free themselves from the domination and control of the Russian communist party, as distinguished from the communist parties in their own lands, the day will be that much nearer when there may be some hope that the people of

these countries will evolve a free system of government which will in fact become a democracy as we understand it.
Prepared as the nations of the Atlantic community are today to do what is necessary to preserve our freedom, it is essential that we all remember that we shall not have carried out our full purpose merely by the preservation of our own freedom. If we believe in the charter of the United Nations, this will only be the first vital step. Nothing can be more vital to any one of us than the preservation of our free system of government, but when we have assured the preservation of that freedom in our own country we still must remember that, to the extent that we still assert our belief in the principles of the United Nations charter, we must do what we can in the days ahead to assure the acceptance of the doctrine that every nation has a right to determine its own course. We must do what we can to bring to those nations which have been brought under Russian domination the hope of freedom that was extended to them when the nations signed that great charter at San Francisco in 1945. Anything less than that is a denial of the very principles for which this country and the other free nations were fighting so short a time ago.
This does not mean that we must contemplate the possibility of aggressive acts of any kind. If the free nations of the west establish a position of such strength and certainty of purpose that Russia is in no doubt whatever about their determination to stand together to preserve their freedom, then we shall have gone a long way towards the fulfilment of that ideal of the United Nations charter. Russia and the nations now satellite to Russian power cannot contemplate with any degree of satisfaction a rigid division between that part of the world under communist governments and that part under free and democratic governments on the other side of the iron curtain. There are many	things	that	Russia	needs	for	thedevelopment of her vast territory. There are many	things	that	Russia	needs	for	the
restoration of her damaged cities and countryside which can only be obtained from the free countries of the west. There are many skills and techniques that Russia needs to assist them in their hope of development in the years ahead.
If the free nations of the west, the nations of the Atlantic community, stand firm and leave no doubt about their purpose, the time may well come-and sooner than many of us may hope today-when it will be possible to say to Russia: Carry out the provisions of the Atlantic charter. Free

Poland; free Yugoslavia; free Bulgaria and Roumania; free the Baltic states; free Czechoslovakia and China from your threat of power. Leave them free to make their own choice, in their own way. Then we shall be prepared to say we do not pretend to tell you what form of government you should have within your own land; and if you give that evidence of acceptance of the charter we shall recognize you as a member of the great fellowship which was established at San Francisco.
That is not an impossible dream or hope. In fact it is the only hope of sanity in the years ahead. It is the only hope for a steady growth of freedom in those lands which have known freedom but which today are under communist control. But the starting point is the firmness of purpose and effective co-operation of the nations now associated in that famous pact, who have been brought together for the preservation of their own freedom and for no other purpose, certainly none which could threaten any other nation.
Here in Canada, as elsewhere, it becomes increasingly important that our intentions be clear beyond doubt. For that reason I want to point out a kind of uncertainty which it seems to me should be removed here in our own country, for it is the kind of uncertainty which may cause confusion in the minds of our people and of people outside Canada. In a speech in this house on November 11 the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) said, as reported at page 1698 of Hansard:
It is perfectly clear that we have no commitments whatever under the North Atlantic treaty.
He went on to indicate that as a result of subsequent discussions which might take place certain commitments might be considered by the government. But I would like to compare his words with those of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) yesterday, as they appear at page 1843 of Hansard:
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.
I think no doubt should be left in the mind of any member of this house, and no doubt should be left in the minds of the people of Canada, as to our actual position. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is the member of the government responsible for our external policies and their expression, has said that 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; while the Minister of National Defence, who would be 45781-120
External Affairs
responsible for the form any military preparation would take, has stated that we have no commitments. This may be simply a difference in the use of the same terms, but I do believe any doubt created by those two expressions should be removed so that no one in this house and no Canadian would be in any uncertainty as to what actually is our position.
This is more than the matter of the definition of a sentence or the particular use of a word. It was out of uncertainties that the last war crept upon us and ultimately became almost unavoidable. We have heard a great deal of what happened in China, and none of us can be for a moment unaware of the direct effect those tragic events have upon this country as a Pacific nation. We should remember that the first dangerous weakening of the league of nations and the first dangerous departure from the principles set out in the covenant occurred when Japan was permitted to carry forward its aggression in Manchuria in 1931 and the years following, with no effective steps taken by those nations which could have asserted their voice and prevented that aggression without a shot being fired.
Hon. members will recall that a commission of great leaders of thought from Canada, Great Britain, the United States, France and other nations went to China and reported upon the situation there. The Canadian leading that delegation was the late Mr. Justice Rowell. Hon members will also recall that it was pointed out that the failure of the nations, who had joined in the league of nations to preserve peace, to act at that time marked the beginning of a steady weakening of that association which had been formed after the first world war to prevent a repetition of that tragedy. Then came the Italian occupation of Ethiopia; then came the German invasion of the Rhineland.
Step by step aggression moved forward, and no effective voices were raised in unity of purpose or in clarity of expression which said to the aggressor nations, "We meant what we said when we signed the charter of the league of nations at Versailles in 1919." Many times since the end of the last war numbers of people have been subjected to acts of aggression. Although the nations of the Atlantic community are joining to preserve their own freedom today, no united voice has been raised to challenge that aggression which has been taking place in the rest of the world in a manner which would stem that flood. For that reason it is essential that we in Canada have no doubt where we stand, and that the

External Affairs
nations with whom we are associated have no doubt where we stand. We should have no doubt where they stand.
In 1939 the people who lived in the free nations said that never again would the word appeasement be written in letters of blood across the face of the world. There has been appeasement. Perhaps that appeasement was unavoidable, but there has been appeasement. Now the nations of the Atlantic community are taking a stand in the face of the threat which confronts them. The effectiveness of the new pact for the preservation of our freedom will depend upon the extent to which each of the member nations knows exactly what that pact means. Whatever it means, let us be quite clear about it. It is only to the extent that we are clear that the nations who are associated together can hope to carry forward the great purposes they have undertaken.
Whatever limitations there are, let those limitations be disclosed. Whatever commitments there are, let those commitments be stated with clarity and without reserve. Whatever the basis of co-operation is, let us, as the elected representatives of the people, know what that basis is so that, through the reporting of the proceedings here, the people of Canada will know exactly what our part is going to be. Let us not once again be uncertain as to what it is we are undertaking or what the course is upon which we have actually embarked. For that reason I would hope that the remarks of the minister which will sum up this debate will clarify those points.
Yesterday, in his comprehensive and constructive speech following that of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) referred to the importance of the use of atomic energy for industrial purposes. He referred to statements that have been made about the difficulty of developing industrial uses while we are still under the threat of the military use of the atom bomb. To the extent that it may be certain that Russia actually has the secret of the atom bomb in practical form, then it would seem that the necessity for some measure of secrecy may have been removed-at any rate in regard to certain processes related to the use of nuclear energy. To the extent that Russia already has knowledge of this great development with its many possibilities for peace, it would seem that the development of this source of energy for peaceful purposes could be extended without fear of any disclosure to a nation that could use that knowledge against us at some time in the future if we were not able to find a peaceful solution to our differences.

As has been pointed out, it may well be that this discovery will usher in the greatest advancement in human welfare in the history of the world. If that immense power can be directed to peaceful ends, then the opportunity for human advancement and for the reduction of human energy in certain activities will have been carried forward to a great degree. Canada is in a unique position to open up opportunities associated with this great discovery. As has been suggested, we need not approach the problems associated with this dramatic discovery with any feeling of limitation because we are a nation of less than 14 million in a world of so many hundreds of millions. The very fact that we are still a nation with a relatively small population opens special opportunities for us to speak with a voice which cannot be suspected because of the certainty that under no conceivable circumstances could we have, any aggressive designs.
I believe it can be said, to the credit of those who have spoken on behalf of Canada at the United Nations' meetings and elsewhere, that the Canadian voice has been heard and that all of us welcome the extent to which Canada's opinion is respected in the councils of the nations of the world.
As we go into the years immediately ahead, years which perhaps will be more fateful than any that we have ever known, those who speak on behalf of Canada will undoubtedly receive the wholehearted support of every member of this house and of every Canadian to the extent that, with clarity, with courage and with constructive thought, they lay before the meetings of the nations plans which will be the basis for possible peace in the years ahead.
We can play a great part because of our unique position as the immediate neighbour of the most powerful single nation of the world and as a partner in that great free fellowship which has been evolving throughout the centuries and which is now a partnership of free nations within the British commonwealth. On the one hand, we are partners with a group of nations with a similar system of government and with a common loyalty to fundamental principles of freedom; and we are the immediate and friendly associate of that other great nation which today is playing such a major role in the preservation of peace. We are in a unique position to be the interpreter to the British fellowship of the point of view of those living on the North American continent; and we are in an equally unique position to interpret to those living on this continent the point of view of those who are associated in that wider world

fellowship. It is a great challenge to every one of us. It is a challenge which places almost no limit upon the opportunity that exists for the representatives of this country to make an effective contribution to the possibility of peace and world-wide understanding in the years ahead.
I have sought to emphasize the point that the great lesson of the years between the two world wars is as to clarity of purpose and the extent to which the nations leave no doubt about their purpose if peace is to be preserved. The nations which met in San Francisco drafted this new pact which they hoped would avoid the weaknesses which had destroyed the hopes of those who joined in the league of nations. The nations which met at San Francisco were determined that never again would the horrible tragedy of those years be repeated if it was within the power of nations working in co-operation to prevent it. It is for that reason that, within such a limited area as the Atlantic pact can operate and ultimately in that wider area embraced by the United Nations charter, each of us should keep alive today the lessons of those tragic years that made the second world war possible-a war which definitely could have been avoided, by all the evidence that is before us today, if the free nations of the world had stood together at that time as they are standing together now.
It is vital that the people of this country and of the other countries be brought fully into the confidence of their governments. It is vital to the success of any plans that are made that the people of each of those countries be brought into wholehearted support of them. For that reason this house not only welcomes the discussion which has taken place on this occasion but will certainly welcome at all times in the future the explanations that can be given by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) or by any other member of the government of the plans that are under way for the preservation of peace and the strengthening of international harmony and good will. This is one subject on which none of us can be divided in purpose, no matter whether in detail any of us may hold a different opinion. The statements that have been made here, and the views that have been expressed from every part of this house, have, I know, been made only in the hope that they may strengthen the hand of the minister and the hand of the government in playing our part as a nation at this important time in our history, so that we may take our part in preserving that peace for which so many of the finest of our youth gave their lives so short a time ago.
External Affairs


Mr, Jean Francois Pouliol (Temiscouaia):: 1
was delighted, Mr. Speaker, to listen to the fine oratorical effort of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew). It shows that he can do well any time that he leaves politics aside.
A few moments ago I was listening to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), who was saying that for a time there was no secretary of state for external affairs. I presume he referred to the time when Mr. Mackenzie King was Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs. I think he may have overlooked the fact that the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) was for a time Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Clarence Gillis: That is right.


Mr. Pouliol:: -and that he did very well, especially when he sponsored the North Atlantic pact. I should like to bring a little bit of comfort to the leader of the opposition by mentioning to him some remarks that were made by a famous general who was afterwards viceroy of India. In the Journal of Tuesday, November 15, there appears a report of a conference that Field Marshal Earl Wavell held with the press right under this roof. The following words appear in quotation marks:
I don't think we shall have a war and I'm sure the Russians don't want war if they can avoid it. I know the Russians, for I have spent about two years there at various times and I would say the Russians are looking for security and trying to build a defence against Germany.
They have been invaded twice in a generation and they have had casualties beyond any other combatant. The devastation caused by the Germans invading Russia had to be seen to be believed.
I think their fear of the Germans is at the bottom of the Russian attitude.
I would say they are not aggressive like the Germans for two reasons-they do not have the German urge for what Hitler called "living space;" because they have plenty of land, and they do not have the aggressive German belief that Germans can run a country better than anyone else. I don't think Stalin and the other Russian realists believe that they can do that. They would like to spread communism into Europe but I doubt if physical aggression and domination is in their minds.
This opinion was expressed by one who was in Russia for two years, and who is supposed to know the Russians very well.
I am not a lecturer on world history and I shall never pose as such. May I quote an excerpt from Chateaubriand. It translates thus:
Nothing seems more ridiculous than the important taciturnity of state mysteries.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is appropriate because everyone takes a solemn tone when he talks on external affairs. Of course the situation is serious, and when we think of the atomic

External Affairs
bomb we think that the world may be destroyed in a minute; but it has not yet occured, and I hope for the best.
For a few minutes I should like to consider external affairs from the point of view of Canada. What X regret is that the high commissioner for Canada in London is in an inferior position to all Canadian ministers and all Canadian ambassadors. It dates back to a long time ago. On September 11, 1939, the member for Temiscouata spoke as follows, as reported at page 114 of Hansard of ten years ago:
Furthermore, it is with Sir Thomas Inskip, who recently entered the House of Lords, that our high commissioner in London, Mr. Massey, had to communicate to get acquainted with the details of the negotiations taking place between the British government and the other powers. Mr. Massey has no direct contact with the French and German embassies in London, and any news he receives originates either from the Foreign Office or the members of the British cabinet.
On page 117 of Hansard I asked this question:
May I ask the Prime Minister if the high commissioner in London gets in touch with the British government or with the embassies of the various countries?
Mr. Mackenzie King replied in this way, and I should like to know if the same situation exists today:
The high commissioner in London is in touch with members of the British government, particularly the secretary of state for the dominions. Through the latter source he frequently obtains information of an inside nature which he communicates immediately to the government here. He does not however come into official relations with ambassadors of other countries.
Therefore the gentleman in question who has been replaced by another gentleman was in an inferior status as compared with ministers and ambassadors. I wonder whether the situation is still the same.
On August 6, 1940, in answer to some suggestions that had been made by the then hon. member for Leeds and the hon. member for Temiscouata to have a treaty with the United States and with the South American republics, and that we should join the panAmerican union, Mr. Mackenzie King said, as reported at page 2540 of Hansard of 1940:
I have no hesitation in saying that I believe it would be embarrassing to the United States and to the South American republics as well as to ourselves, and would create misunderstanding in other countries, were Canada to seek to become a member of the pan-American union.
On page 2541 the following appears:


Mr. Adamson:: Any attempt to join the pan-
American union now would be construed by our enemies as weakness on our part and disintegration of the British empire. Any alteration in our constitutional status at the present time would be so regarded by them.


Mr. Mackenzie King:: I think it would be deliberately so construed.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes, deliberately so.
And they were experts on external affairs at the time.
Mr. Mackenzie King said also, at page 2540:
For that reason I feel that it is not desirable that we in Canada should discuss publicly at this time the advisability of treaties of the kind mentioned, however strongly we may feel with respect to the wisdom of them.
We could not have treaties, but eleven days afterwards the Ogdensburg agreement was reached between President Roosevelt and Mr. Mackenzie King. But there was no treaty with the United States. It would have caused prejudice to Canada to sign a treaty with the United States and to enter into the panAmerican union-very bad.
On page 2540 of Hansard Mr. Mackenzie King made a pronouncement with regard to a headline in the afternoon papers. This is the headline:
Denies Canada arming Japan against Britain, Premier declares government acting to curb arms export.
This is what Mr. Mackenzie King said:
Then followed the statement on which the heading was based. What I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to is this. That particular statement has a significance here in Canada, but that statement is cabled to all parts of the world, and I have to ask myself what effect that question and answer is going to have in the United Kingdom in her present embarrassing relations with the orient. What effect is that question and the answer given going to have in Japan,-
What effect was his answer going to have in Japan? I continue:
-where at the present time, as we all know, there are many persons who are supercritical in the matter of trade and political relations between different parts of the world and that particular country. But above all, I ask, what effect is that particular question and the answer going to have when cabled to Germany,-
What effect was Mr. King's answer going to have in Germany? We were at war with Germany. He continued:
.-and it is broadcast throughout Germany that the Prime Minister of Canada has had to deny that Canada was arming Japan against Britain?
Well, we had to listen to that. There is more to it. This is an answer to what the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) said, namely, that we had no minister of external affairs at the time that Mr. Mackenzie King was prime minister and secretary of state for external affairs. Here is a quotation from Hansard of April 20, 1943, at page 2365. It referred to a parliamentary assistant. He appointed a parliamentary assistant to himself as president of the privy

council, but not to himself as Prime Minister or to himself as Secretary of State for External Affairs. The appointee was acting only as parliamentary assistant in one of the three capacities of Mr. Mackenzie King, namely that of president of the privy council. Then he went on:
Reference has been made to myself and the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. No one in this world would be more pleased than I if tomorrow I could have a separate minister of external affairs who could assume responsibility for all the work of that department without my being obliged to keep myself familiar with it. That is impossible. With the war situation what it is, over four-fifths of the business of the Prime Minister today is related immediately to external affairs.
Four-fifths of his time was taken up by external affairs.
The communications that come in hour by hour on which decisions have promptly to be made or given is part of the business, not merely of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but of the Prime Minister who has to keep fully in touch with these all-important things.
Then, speaking of the two positions of Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs, he went on to say:
But it is no more possible to separate some of these positions that seem to be easy of separation than it is to construct an entirely new arrangement of government.
Then he said:
The ministers should have more time for consideration of matters of high policy and have that time free away from the House of Commons altogether.
He was paying so much attention to the House of Commons that I remember he refused to prorogue the house at the end of the session, as I suggested to him in 1940, saying that parliament would be called in any case of urgency. The house was adjourned early in December of 1941, and he declared war on five countries when parliament was not sitting. We were officially notified by him a month and a half after it was done.
Proceeding chronologically, in 1944 I asked him this question:
Was Canada represented at the Cairo and Teheran conferences held last year?
The answer by the then prime minister was no. Then:
Is Canada bound by decisions taken at such conferences?
And the answer is no. But listen to this:
But obviously any conclusions relating to the conduct of the war reached by the representatives and heads of governments participating in those conferences will carry very great authority with all members of the United Nations.
He was not invited. He was not consulted. But what was decided by the big ones carried
External Affairs
great authority. What was the story of Dunkirk?-incompetence and stupidity were responsible for the death of many. What was the story of Hong Kong? According to the text of a war office statement describing the defence of Hong Kong, it states, on December 7:
All our demolitions were successful and our troops withdrew according to plan. A readjustment of the line was desirable and this was successfully carried out at dusk.
And then on December 25:
The military and naval commanders informed the governor no further resistance could be made.
That was intelligence. And one knows about the fall of Singapore. I would refer you, sir, to the report of Lieutenant General Arthur Ernest Percival, commander in Malaya, who blamed the fall of Singapore on British unpreparedness. It is unfortunate, but we had better look after our own affairs than rely upon those incompetent people who have proved it for many years. If Russia at first and the United States afterwards had not come to the rescue of Britain, where would she be today?


Mr. Brooks:: Where would you be?


Jean-François Pouliot: I would be well, in Canada- just the same as my hon. friend, who is a jingo, and I am sorry for him. And I will tell you something else, that the Prime Minister was full-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: I mean the late prime minister-was full of the impression-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Don't anticipate-that he was doing something with regard to external affairs, when he was just a listening post. When he landed at Halifax on September 2,
1946,	upon returning from Europe he was asked by a reporter if he had discussed the Canadian espionage case with Mr. Molotov, and he answered:
I did not feel any necessity of going into matters outside Europe when I was inside Europe.
That was the interview given by the prime minister of Canada, who forgot Canada completely when he was going to those conferences in Europe. Then, to scandalize still more my hon. friend from Royal (Mr. Brooks) I shall quote Churchill to him, and what Churchill said about Britain and the British government. On March 12, 1947:
Churchill fears for Britain a measureless crash.
This from the Ottawa Journal of April 10,
1947.	Then, on April 12, 1947, a month after that-
Decline of British power has been accompanied by the rise and expansion of Soviet Russia.

External Affairs
That is Churchill in the New York Times of April 12, 1947. Then, in the same month, April 23, 1947:
Churchill tonight criticized the Labour government for stupidity, ineptitude and incompetence.
This from the Associated Press of April 23, 1947. Then, on May 14, 1947:
Churchill termed Europe a rubble heap, a charnel house, a breeding ground for pestilence and hate.
This from the Canadian Press of May 14, as it appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 15, 1947. Then, on May 16, 1947, at Ayr, Scotland, from the Reuters agency-
There is no country in the world that is being racketed to pieces in the way we are, and there is no country less capable of surviving such maltreatment.
This is Churchill again in the Ottawa Journal of May 17, 1947.
I hope that is enough. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said that the San Francisco conference was a great and helpful thing. I do not think it was.


John Horne Blackmore: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not think it was, and for these two obvious reasons: First of all, they decided to adopt public statements, and public discussion on diplomacy, which is all wrong. In the second place, I do not think it was helpful because they granted the right of veto by suggesting that all decisions should be unanimous. Those are two reasons why the new diplomacy has been so unsuccessful during the last years since the close of hostilities.
As Canadians we are interested in making progress. We are interested to have as our representatives at Paris, London, Lake Success or anywhere else, men who interpret the position of Canada not in the interests of the British empire, but in the first place in the interests of Canada. And the part of the British empire that interests us most, with the exception of the West Indies, which should be annexed to Canada before the bankruptcy of Britain takes place, should be India.
The other day the House of Commons gave a generous welcome to Mr. Nehru, the leader of India. The head of Pakistan also came here. In India, Pakistan and Ceylon we have a very populous part of the world. They are near China, and they could do a lot to ensure the peace of the world. When we think of a man like Mr. Nehru coming to the United States and Canada on a friendly visit and trying to make us understand the difficulties of his position, he deserves all possible credit and support we can give him because the light comes from India with its population of 380 million people, also from Pakistan and

Ceylon, and later on from China because our best ambassador of peace to China should be Mr. Nehru himself.
I shall not continue at greater length about that. Hon. members who are more familiar with world history may take up the matter where I have left it and express their own opinions. I respect the opinions of all. What makes me rejoice is that, with a few exceptions, the House of Commons is more Canadian than it has ever been during the twenty-five years that I have been a member of parliament. Members are not afraid to speak of Canada now, and we hear fine declarations from all quarters of the house. Of course there are some dark spots but they are the exception. In all parts of the house members seem to be proud of being Canadian, and seem to want to do something as Canadians for their country. That is good news. It is cheerful and encouraging. I remember the time when I fought almost alone for the recognition of Canada, when I fought for the respect of man, for the respect of those who were working in industries as a part of our essential war effort. They were not recognized; both farmers and men working in industry were treated as slackers.


Mr. Ferguson:: May I-


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask my hon. friend to sit down. I will not tolerate any interruptions by a black spot from Simcoe.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have to tolerate your criticism of previous members of this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend should be 150 years old because he is 100 years backward.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Black spot-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I protest the hon. member's statement about a black spot from Simcoe.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: He has got to take it back.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: We have listened to this long enough. Black spot from Simcoe! He is one of the blackest spots in the Dominion of Canada. I hope the hon. member will be gentleman enough to withdraw the statement he made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will say red spot.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Very British, I am glad to say.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right. Now, Mr. Speaker, the red spot being erased I shall proceed.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: You will never erase it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not surprised to see the hon. member rising in his seat as he does because he is so backward that he reminds me of the time when my ancestors were fighting against bureaucrats and the servile servants of the crown who were so bigoted that they understood nothing. I am following the tradition of my family in describing the hon. gentleman as he deserves to be, without offence.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Your family was glad to have the support of my family and this country in times past. You fought under the same flag and were proud to do so in those days.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: 1 will tell the hon. member to shut up. He reminds me of a frog.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I would expect that from you.


Jean-François Pouliot: He reminds me of a frog that tries to be bigger than it really is.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I would expect that from you, and so does everybody in the House of Commons. We are sick of you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not afraid of him. I will tell him that his performance is exactly as I described it to my constituents when I spoke to them.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: It always will be.


Jean-François Pouliot: The trouble with the House of Commons is that there is a minority of bigoted members who understand nothing, who rise when it is not their time to rise, who are backward, who are imperialists, who are slaves of the empire, and who are glad to lick the boots of the blokes. Here is an example of that.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Proud of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is proud of it. He is proud to lick the boots of the blokes who infest the country.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I am proud to be British, proud to fight for them, and always will be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: That being said-


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I know it irritates you.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was glad to say what I did to that bigoted gentleman who has never understood anything since he has been in the House of Commons.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order. This discussion is all out of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, sir. This leads me to a happy conclusion. I have often told my constituents that what I rejoice about and
External Affairs
what I am proud of is that now we have a Canadian government and a Liberal party which are really Canadian instead of being inspired by imperialists such as the hon. member who has just interrupted me. He counts for nothing. I give credit to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that he has realized that, as far as influence is concerned, the hon. gentleman who has just interrupted me is a nonentity.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it has been difficult to remain silent during some of this discussion, but the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot) has no right to describe any member of the house as a nonentity, or as mattering nothing. Every hon. member of the house has been elected by the people of his constituency and represents them here. I think the hon. member will do much better if he remembers that and directs his remarks to the subject under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege, I did not say that the hon. member was a nonentity. I said that with regard to his influence he was a nonentity. That is entirely different. I did not speak directly of the hon. member. I spoke of the influence that he has with the government. I know very well that under a previous government he would have been an oracle. A former prime minister would have said: We must appease the hon. gentleman; if he rises there will be a thunderstorm. He has risen and there was no thunderstorm.
What do we hope for? Our hope is that the present government will carry on its Canadian policy, tell the people that they should be proud of Canada, and look after Canadian interests above all others. Then we shall have prosperity and security. How could we expect the meetings at Lake Success or anywhere else to be successful if Canadian representatives carrying on discussions with the other delegates should speak like my hon. friend. If the delegates to those meetings were jumping up on all sides like my hon. friend it would be most unfortunate. There would be no possibility of understanding between them. Everybody would speak to the gallery. I did not speak to the gallery. My hon. friend probably rose to enthuse the ladies in the gallery with his sweet voice.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should direct what he has to say to the subject under discussion, instead of saying the Liberal party is going to remain in power here for the next hundred years, making a purely political speech out of it, and referring directly to me. If he will just devote the ability he undoubtedly has to enlightening the house on the subject under discussion he will be better employed. Unless he does so I shall continue to interrupt him

External Affairs


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not going to continue this discussion, Mr. Speaker. There has been a long gap since the ancestors of my hon. friend were in politics, and the gap still exists. I do not want to say anything unpleasant to the hon. gentleman but I will say he represents a tradition. That is the tradition of the imperialists, those who believe the empire comes ahead of Canada. The empire no longer exists; but they are imperialists first and Canadians afterward. I am a Canadian first; that is the difference. I believe a majority of the members of this house are Canadians first. The speech made by my hon. friend would do his party great harm if it were taken seriously. I regret very much that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) rose in defence of his supporter. No doubt it was a matter of loyalty on his part, and to a certain extent I admire him for it, but he does not realize and will never realize what a load the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson) is for his party to carry; and I say that of all those who share his views. I regret having to make these statements; it is unfortunate, but such things have to be said sooner or later. Now they have been said it is over, so let us think of a bright future.
I congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on the speech he made yesterday. The interview with the minister in Maclean's magazine a month ago was also very good. He has given us some information which indicates that at the present time Canada is respected by the nations of the world. If at San Francisco there was a distinction between small and large powers, in the North Atlantic pact there is no such distinction. They are all alike; each has the right to say what it wishes. Therefore the North Atlantic pact is a protection for the whole world. It shows the Russians that we can hold the big stick, that we can defend ourselves in case of attack, and that is very good. I hope the minister will use his powers of persuasion to the utmost in trying to reach agreement sooner or later with those who do not support the views expressed by Canada's representatives at Lake Success. That can be done only in secret conversations; but when the various delegates get together and discuss matters of common concern they will be able to arrive at a solution that will be to the benefit of mankind.
Last evening I heard the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) say that prayers should be said for peace. How many people tell their children never to forget when saying their prayers at night, when their

arms are on their little beds, to pray that at last peace may reign on earth? Christmas is coming; peace has been promised to men of good will. So I hope that the prayers of children as well as the prayers of men will be well understood by God, and that finally we shall have that peace for which everyone is praying.
(Translation):


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, when I saw, a few moments ago, ominous clouds gather on our small community, the House of Commons, I felt I should speak in French, in a language I would like to make as beautiful and as clear as when Corneille, Racine and others spoke it, so that it may act as a ray of resplendent sunshine. But need I really compare this beautiful language to a ray of sunshine, since the words of peace and understanding spoken by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), when he concluded his speech, have dispelled those clouds as if by magic and have given us a striking example of what international co-operation and peace may accomplish.
Mr. Speaker, like all other members, I usually pay a great deal of attention to requests submitted to me by my constituents. Since we are dealing with external affairs, I feel I should put on record a request submitted to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) by the Sacred Heart leagues in my constituency and elsewhere, especially by the league from Donnacona, for the internationalization of the Holy Land.
I shall not quote the whole resolution; I can, however, tell the house that public opinion in my constituency is strongly in favour of the project. On the other hand, I am quite sure that the government will draw the attention of the United Nations to this matter which is of such particular interest at the moment.
I wish to join the previous speakers in congratulating the Secretary of State foi External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I know it is unnecessary, but I do so just the same. Our representative at the United Nations acquits himself so well of his duties that any hon. member who speaks during this most important debate cannot help but compliment the minister, who so fully deserves it. I also wish to pay tribute to the other delegates who accompanied him to Lake Success, and in doing so I am sure that I express the feelings of the house.
At one time, whenever I intended taking part in a debate, my friends used to ask me, "Will you speak of communism?"

When the house adjourned this morning, a friend of mine, who is one of the youngest and most brilliant members of the house, asked me whether I would discuss Spain in this debate. In order to follow the traditional practice and to preserve the good fellowship which should prevail among members of the house, I have decided to ask those who share my opinion to urge the United Nations organization to give kinder and greater consideration to the various requests concerning Spain's admission to the organization, as a party to the Atlantic pact.
Mr. Salazar, who is recognized as the most liberal dictator in existence, recently appealed for the admission of Spain to the United Nations organization. I do not know whether his words will carry enough weight to convince the leaders of the organization.
Here, I wish to refer to something the hon. member for Temiscouata said a while ago when he spoke about the great powers' veto. I would ask the supporters of this right of veto-and I am not now criticizing or censuring anyone in this house-whether or not they feel the right of veto granted to the Big Three is dictatorial in nature, since they are using it to bar Spain from membership in the United Nations, under the pretext that it is now led by dictator Franco.
Can we not think that the word "logic" has lost its meaning? If dictatorial behaviour is countenanced within the United Nations organization why not admit the thought of including a liberal dictator like Franco-or Mr. Salazar?
I fail to see why, within the United Nations or elsewhere, there should be any objection to Spain's admission. Is it simply because Franco is being held in derision and pointed at, because he is a dictator?
Present democracies and the greater part of those who are members of the United Nations certainly have had friendly relations with dictators of the past. A king has been known to seek help from a dictator, to restore order in his country. So it was that, in 1923, King Alfonso XIII called upon Primo de Rivera to become a military dictator and to lead a full-fledged dictatorship.
If you will refer to the Encyclopaedia Britannica you will read about the circumstances surrounding Primo de Rivera's advent as head of the Spanish army, where he was called by a king. How ironical that those very nations which did not protest against Primo 45781-121
External Affairs
de Rivera's leadership should now deny Spain the right and privilege to sit beside other nations of the world in the councils of the United Nations.
Besides, Canada itself, if it did not directly help Franco into power, at least made things somewhat easier for him. In 1937 this very house passed a law which, in effect, prevented Canadian nationals from enlisting in the Spanish republic army to fight Franco. It is chapter 32 of the Statutes of Canada. It may therefore be said that we facilitated Franco's ascent to power. That is why I cannot understand that we should now deny Spain, and Franco, the right to belong to the United Nations organization.
Mr. Speaker, there are other dictators. Our friend Salazar, a dictator, is and always has been a friend of England, especially during the war. Fulgentio Batista of Cuba was a dictator but never incurred the displeasure of the United States. When England and the United States are considering ways and means to make peace with Yugoslavia, and to grant her a loan, does it not seem like a gesture that is-I will not say ridiculous, because it would be too harsh a word-but illogical?
At the present time Tito, even though he is dictator of Yugoslavia and seems to be drawing away from Stalin, nevertheless remains an avowed and earnest communist. Recently he was up to his tricks with England and at a meeting of the executive of the Yugoslav communist party, even went so far as to say:
The atomic bomb is a new factor with which the forces of capitalism want to destroy the Soviet union and the victorious hopes of the working class. It is their only hope . . .
We did not quite reach our goal because ever since 1945 production of the atomic bomb was accelerated and improved upon. However, we are not far short of our aims. We need a little more time, however, to reorganize our troops and complete our preparations with arms and munitions. For the time being we will therefore follow a middle-of-the-road policy so as to gain time and to achieve industrial reconstruction within the Soviet union and other countries under its control.
I hate to think that he would use American and British loans to achieve industrial reconstruction within the Soviet union and other countries under its control. Tito continues:
Then the time will come to launch into the battle for the final extermination of reaction.
Our first target is Great Britain, even though public opinion ranks it second in importance and considers our forces should rally instead against the United States. We must never forget that Great Britain is very influential on four continents.
There is a man who today receives loans from two great countries which, moreover, officially recognize his government. These

External Affairs
two great countries, however, refuse to acknowledge Spain among the nations, as she is entitled to be. It is not because he is a Roman Catholic and that I am too that I speak on behalf of Franco, but from a strategic point of view. I believe Spain could exert a beneficial influence among the nations of the North Atlantic pact. If Spain were afforded a more serious, more adequate, more real and more rational consideration, the world would largely benefit therefrom, because, as I said before in the house, quoting Goethe:
Spain is at the gateway of the Mediterranean sea. The nation holding Constantinople will hold power over the world.
Constantinople is at the gateway of the Mediterranean sea. Mr. Speaker, let us suppose for a moment-although I shall never believe it might come to pass-that the whole of Europe becomes the prey of communism- I do not say of Russia, but of communism. Let us suppose that Spain should remain the only fortress and in my opinion she is now the strongest fortress against communism in Europe and in the world, next to Canada.
Supposing that the remainder of Europe, both coasts of the Mediterranean, for instance, should be occupied by forces under the control of Russia, what would happen, strategically and economically, to the remnant of the great British empire? What will happen if the United States and Canada have to face alone a nation stronger in armaments and manpower, and contend against its ideology? We should not disregard the ever-increasing [DOT] force of Russia and her ideology.
Because the nations are unwilling to place their discussions upon a reasonable and logical basis, that is the respect of the human being, their negotiations will not bring the desired results and the co-operation which would be necessary for the establishment of world peace will be lacking. It is imperative that the nations should be alive to the situation. As the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said a few minutes ago, they have the right to choose whatever government they want.
In saying this, I do not neglect Spain which has a government to its liking. Some people declaim very strongly against the Spanish government. Yet, in this world of ours, peoples like individuals have a character of their own; but too often, unfortunately, international associations do not recognize this fact.
Knowing the character of the Spaniards and the human geography of Spain, one has

to conclude that that country now has the kind of government which will enable it to regain the economic stability which was denied its people, even by the republic of 1931.
Some people give as their idle pretext for refusing to admit Spain within the United Nations that Franco's government has persecuted and is still persecuting various religious denominations. They are completely wrong. Those that have been persecuted by Franco's government were guilty of political activity as politicians. They were not persecuted because of their religious beliefs, but because they wanted to overthrow Franco, in order to replace his regime by their own clique. Then the Spaniards, who want to live like other people, would first be under a so-called republican rule, and later under communist domination.
I have in my hand an article by a man quite familiar with Spanish affairs, Mr. Richard Pattee, in which he states that those who know the Spanish temperament are aware that at the present time only Franco's dictatorship can keep Spaniards united. I realize that the word "dictatorship" has an unpleasant ring in many ears. Yet those who wince at the sound of it would be prepared to set up another dictatorship, even more rigid, such as that which now exists in Russia, a state dictatorship.
At first, this type of dictatorship is content to nationalize this or that industry. It then goes on to nationalize medicine and, in so doing utterly destroys the true character of the doctor. It then nationalizes steel mills and transports, and so the dictatorship keeps on and grows apace.
Recently, two English bishops or archbishops offered advice to the labour-socialist government of Great Britain. What happened? Two members of the British cabinet, Messrs. Shinwell and Cripps, felt called upon to issue a tart warning to England's church authorities not to meddle with affairs of the nation. Once again and strangely enough that was glaringly illogical. Government spokesmen requested the guardians of the nation's morals not to meddle with politics. Now the very politicians who chided them for defending morals now admit that England is going through a moral crisis, thus justifying the men who sought to help the government.
Mr. Speaker, a fairly long time ago there lived in Europe a man remarkable for his tenacity, his courage and his methodical work. I am not praising him, I am just stating facts

and describing this man who had such a pleasant disposition that he was called "Dr. Cranky". That man was Karl Marx, who knew the country's history well enough.
Speaking about Russia, Karl Marx stated:
Impeding the annexation policy of Russia is an all-important matter. This matter concerns all democracies and especially Great Britain and all the nations of the world must unite to prevent this invasion by Russia.
Karl Marx knew history and was aware that before the advent of communism in Russia, there was a man, Peter the Great, whom communists consider today as the forerunner of communism. Peter the Great said:
Let us deal with the east, let us look towards the east. The west is a matter of time.
Karl Marx did not know however,-because he died seventeen years too soon,-that another communist would say almost the same thing. That man was Lenin, who was born in 1870. Moreover, students of world history have realized that the annexation policy of the Czars has been overshadowed by the annexation program of the communists. Therefore those who consider Peter the Great as one of the forerunners of communism are not altogether wrong. Moreover, we have the testimonials of those who strongly believe in Peter the Great and who themselves consider him foremost among the forerunners of communism.
I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs speak yesterday of the Middle East and the Far East. As far as that part of Asia is concerned, I still believe that the aim of Russia as well as of the communists has always been to conquer the east, and once well established in the east, to deal more successfully with the west.
I am asking and I shall keep on asking that the nations recognize Spain's desire to membership in the United Nations, not as a futile right but as an almost sacred right, a right that all the nations of the world will want to recognize if they really fear communism and the dangers which this doctrine holds for world peace. Nowadays it is really no longer a question of communist doctrine since the encroachments of Lenin, Stalin and others. In 1820, there was a movement which spread again in 1823. It was the panslavonic movement, which grew around the year 1850. Mr. Speaker, when I say panslavonic I do not mean communist, because communism diverted the real purpose of the pan-slavonic movement.
I repeat that so long as the world does not come back to the basic idea of recognizing 45781-121J
External Affairs
the sacredness of human beings and human rights, so long as those rights are not fully recognized, any declaration of human rights and privileges made at the United Nations or elsewhere will be devoid of meaning.
In concluding, I wish to say that my remarks imply no criticism, but that they are merely the expression of my own views. I never hesitate to voice my opinion. I know that other members wish to speak this afternoon, and I shall therefore let them take the floor. Before doing so, however, I wish to quote something that was said by Goethe, the old German who has achieved an outstanding place in history. I quote:
There comes a point where national hatred disappears completely, and where rising as it were above national considerations, men feel the good or ill fortune of a neighbouring people as if it were their own.
Goethe's saying should be pondered by the representatives of the United Nations who are responsible for the re-establishment of world peace. I ask that Spain be admitted to the United Nations because I think her co-operation is necessary in our continued fight against communist Russia's encroachments throughout the world and especially in Europe.
I cannot understand how two nations like the United States and Great Britain can believe that a communist like Tito could, after obtaining a loan from them, turn against communism. We ought to be certain. When a nation is ready to co-operate with the United Nations, account must be taken of the character of its people since the aim is to give her our help, our co-operation and the assurance of a better future, whereby she may continue her march toward progress. That is my wish for Spain.
(Text):


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has been listening very patiently now for almost two whole days to excellent speeches on external affairs. I have no intention of making a speech in the ordinary sense, but I am concerned about two particular questions which I propose to place before him in the hope that when he is summing up at the end of the debate he will say something about them. The first is this. I would ask him to go further than he did yesterday in explaining Canada's policy in the Pacific. For example, there

External Affairs
appeared in the press of Tuesday and also of yesterday dispatches from London to the effect that there is to be a conference in Colombo, Ceylon, in the month of January, which will deal with the questions of recognition of the Chinese communist government and of a peace treaty with Japan. One of the dispatches does not indicate whether or not Canada will be attending, but I think the dispatch of yesterday said that it was expected that Canada would be participating in this conference. From now on I hope that the Canadian government will see to it that Canada takes a leading part in Pacific affairs.
I realize that the majority of the people of Canada live on the Atlantic slope. They face Europe. Most of the Canadians who live on the Pacific slope came either from eastern Canada or from Europe, or their parents came from eastern Canada or Europe, so that even on the Pacific slope there is almost as much interest taken in what goes on in Europe as in what goes on across the Pacific. It is readily understood why Canadians follow primarily the events across the Atlantic. But in recent years there have been drastic changes in the Pacific, and Canada is vitally affected by everything that happens around that ocean. I believe that the situation there is a good deal more serious today than it is in Europe. The Secretary of State for External Affairs used words to that effect yesterday, which may be found at page 1837 of Hansard. After dealing with the situation in Europe he said:
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 post-war problems of the Pacific area.
I believe that the policy of the United States has been a mistaken one in that that nation has not paid sufficient attention to the Pacific. I hold in my hand a pamphlet of the Behind-the-Headlines series, entitled "American Policy Abroad" by Blair Bolles, the director of the Washington bureau of the American foreign policy association. He calls the American foreign policy a "half-world policy". He says:
The weakness of American foreign policy has been its concentration on Europe. By this concentration, it has left itself exposed to developments in Asia, where the Soviet union and the communists have enormously increased their power without hindrance.
Then there is another paragraph headed, "The neglect of Asia" in which he says:
As a result of the conflict with the Soviet union, American foreign policy has become primarily a policy for Europe, and the heart of European policy is Germany. Thus one effect of Russian pressure on the United States has been neglect of other parts of the world, notably the Far East and Latin America. As the Chinese communist armies steadily

advanced during the late months of 1948 and the early months of 1949 towards Nanking, the Chinese nationalist capital, the Truman administration kept its attention riveted on Europe and the Atlantic, although the submission of China to a communist government implied extension of Russian influence over a great portion of the globe outside Europe.
And the attitude of the Canadian government has been very much the same, even during this session. Only about a month ago, there appeared in the press dispatches to the effect that there was to be a conference in Singapore attended by high diplomatic and military planners of various nations of the commonwealth. That dispatch, however, did not mention Canada.
On October 17, on the orders of the day, 1 asked a question which is to be found at page 825 of Hansard as to whether Canada had been invited to attend this conference and, if so, whether she was going to attend. The purpose of the conference was described as being to consider the threat of communism in the Orient, and to discuss the recognition of communist China. In the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) himself answered. In effect his answer was that Canada had had no official information concerning the proposed meeting. He indicated that perhaps it was just a meeting of officials on the spot, and that no invitation had been extended to Canada. I asked then whether or not the government would make inquiries concerning this conference, and would attend if invited. The Prime Minister was rather short in his reply. In effect he brushed aside the question; I thought he did not show very much interest in the conference, and did not seem to realize just how much Canada is concerned with what is happening in the Pacific area.
In his remarks yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs showed a much clearer realization of the importance of this area. At page 1837 of Hansard he pointed out that Canada borders on the Pacific ocean, and would be very foolish to try to isolate herself from the political and economic problems of Asia. Then he went on to explain to the members that one could fly from Vancouver to the Orient within a matter of a day or two, and that now there was no longer any Far East. As he put it,-
In fact in this air age the Far East is neither far nor east.
I thought this seemed to put the situation very well. Then he went on to say:
Therefore Canadians must learn to look, as they are of course learning to look, northwest to Asia.
His sense of direction was a little poor when he said "northwest", because if Canada looked northwest to Asia all she would see would be Siberia. I think in looking across

the Pacific we must look from Siberia right down to Australia and New Zealand, taking in all the nations across the Pacific. However that may have been what the minister really intended to say.
Might I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, we would wish very much tonight at eight o'clock to take up item No. 24 on the order paper, a resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) referring to the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939. I understand my colleague did speak to the leaders of the opposition parties, and that they have expressed no objection. Furthermore I wish to tell the house that the minister is leaving tomorrow for Washington and does not know exactly when he will be back. He would like to have this resolution moved up to a stage where it could be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization.


Gordon Graydon: May I add this observation to what the minister has said. In the absence of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) the Minister of Agriculture saw me this afternoon, and indicated that the other two groups were agreeable to having this resolution pass through the committee stage, then to have the bill introduced and given first and second readings, on the understanding that the bill will go at once after second reading to the committee on agriculture and colonization for consideration.


Alphonse Fournier: That is my understanding, that the leaders of the two other parties have agreed to this procedure.


Mr. Coldwell:: We understood that, yes.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, by reducing the area taken out of payment in an eligible area when contiguous to an ineligible area; by reducing the size of an eligible area within an ineligible township and contiguous to one that is eligible; and to bring into payment any half township outside areas already established on a legal township basis but not contiguous thereto.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that I am compelled by circumstances to suggest to the various opposition groups in the house that we be allowed to proceed with this resolution and the bill based upon it in a manner which is not strictly in accordance with the rules. I find it necessary to do so because of the fact that I agreed some little time ago to go to the Royal Winter fair in Toronto tomorrow, and I have just received notice today that one of the ministers of the British government and the secretary of agriculture of the United States are to head a delegation to the FAO conference in Washington. It has been suggested by the government that, in view of these circumstances, I should be in Washington on Monday. Last spring when this measure was spoken to in the previous session I said that when it was introduced into the house it would be submitted to the standing committee on agriculture. I am afraid that if the bill had to remain over until I return from Washington there would not be sufficient time to have it submitted at this session. During this session I have also intimated that the bill would be submitted to the standing committee on agriculture.
In order that it may get before that committee I have discussed with the leaders of the three opposition groups the possibility of our having the bill advanced tonight through the different stages which will make it possible to have it submitted at once to the standing committee on agriculture. It would get before that committee not later than next Monday or Tuesday, whatever might be decided upon by the members of the committee. Therefore I should like to suggest that if the resolution is allowed to proceed into the committee stage I will make a statement on it, and I shall be prepared then to answer any questions in order that all information which hon. members may desire to have at the moment may be given. Then I suggest that the bill be given second reading and be then submitted to the standing committee on agriculture. If that meets with the approval of the house we can proceed in that way and get the bill before the standing committee, after which it will come back to the house and be discussed in full in committee of the whole house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, in view of the unusual procedure and the fact that I had only three copies of the bill at hand before coming into the house, one of which I have given to the acting leader of the official opposition, the other being in the hands of one or other of the other two opposition groups, I think it might be advisable for me to read the

Prairie Farm Assistance Act bill, which is very short, so that hon. members will at least have in their minds what it provides. It reads as follows:
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. Section 7 of the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939, chapter 50 of the statutes of 1939, as enacted by section 3 of chapter 24 of the statutes of 194748, is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"7. Notwithstanding anything contained in this act
(a)	where a rectangular block of sections of land within an eligible township having an area of not less than one-sixth of the township and a side that lies along the boundary of an ineligible area is determined by the board to have an average yield of more than ten bushels of wheat per acre, such block of sections of land shall be ineligible for award;
I might explain that by saying that under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, under the conditions which prevail at the present time, no payment can be made unless there is a block of land six miles square, that is, a legal township, in which the average yield of wheat is eight bushels or less per acre. That is the basis of the present act. Then it goes on to say that, if it is eight bushels or less per acre, from eight down to four the payment is $1.50 an acre, and from four down it is $2.50 an acre, with a minimum payment of $200 from four bushels down and a maximum payment of $500. That in general is the basis of the act as it now stands.
What clause (a) says is that if there is an area within one of these townships of six sections of land, that is, six times 640 acres, that has an average yield of more than ten bushels per acre, then that particular part of the township can be taken out. In other words, where you have an average yield of ten bushels or more in a particular part of a township covering six sections or more and lying alongside an ineligible area and the average yield may be eight bushels or less over the whole township, then that part can be taken out. The next subsection of the bill provides:
(b)	where a rectangular block of sections of land within an ineligible township having an area of not less than one-sixth of the township and a side that lies along the boundary of an eligible township is determined by the board to have an average yield of eight bushels of wheat or less per acre, such block of sections of land shall be eligible for award as though it were a complete township;
The first subsection provides that where it is over ten bushels to the acre then six sections or more may be taken out. The next subsection provides that where it is eight bushels or less per acre then six sections or more can be added in. The next subsection reads:
(c)	where the board has determined that an area is eligible for award and a rectangular block of


sections of land outside such area having an area of not less than one-half a township is determined by the board to have an average yield of eight bushels of wheat or less per acre, such block of sections of land shall be eligible for award as though it were a complete township."
That provision was first asked for by the province of Manitoba, the reason being that that province has never obtained as much by way of payments under this legislation as it has paid in. The act provides that when farmers deliver grain to the elevators in the west one per cent of the value of the grain is taken and put into a fund, and, to the extent that that does not provide enough, money is taken out of the treasury of Canada in order to make the payments. On the whole the result has been that there has been about $3 paid out of the fund for every $1 put in by farmers. That is for the whole area, but in so far as Manitoba is concerned there has not been as much paid out of the fund as has been put in by the farmers. They have discussed whether or not they should be withdrawn from the act, and have decided that it would be best to remain in. From time to time they have suggested that in Manitoba there are areas affected amounting to less than a township-and the same thing prevails in other parts of the west-which are some distance removed from the large block that enters into the general provisions of the legislation, where payments should be made. So they proposed that we should put it on a half-township basis.
We have argued against that as applying to the whole of the area in the three western provinces, saying we would have to divide each township into four divisions and check in each in order to determine whether a halftownship was in or out, which would make administration costs much too high. So as an alternative we have proposed what we are suggesting now by way of amendment to the act; that we go anywhere outside a block that has been established on the basis of the complete township and then start a new area by setting up a half-township. That halftownship may be all within a legal township of six square miles, or it may be part of any one or more townships. In other words there may be eighteen sections of land some parts of which could be in any one of four townships. That which has a yield of eight bushels or less may be set up as a unit from which we start; and then we proceed as though that were a full township and build up around it by the six-section strips provided for in the other sections, or by taking out in the same way.
In a few words, that is the meaning of this amendment. The second and last section of the bill provides that the act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of

August, 1949. The reason for that is that we announced the introduction of this bill last spring, and it was assumed that it would be passed in time to take care of this year's crop. Payments are not made until December, which is still half a month away, so if this legislation is deemed to have come into effect as of August 1, 1949, it will mean that payments will be made on the basis of the 1949 crop.
In effect those are the terms of the legislation. I do not know just what information hon. members may desire before proceeding further, but if there are any questions, or if any hon. members desire to make statements, perhaps it would be better to have that done now. I can only add that I think I have sufficient information before me to answer in a brief way any questions hon. members may desire to ask, or to give a hurried reply to any statements that may be made with respect to suggested amendments other than those now proposed.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I think hon. members on all sides will welcome the minister's statement and the introduction of this legislation reducing the area that may be declared eligible for payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. However, the bill does not go nearly as far as I would like to see it go. The unit basis for the payment of the bonus, as I understand it, now will be reduced from a township to a half-township. While this will help remove part of the discrimination that has prevailed in the past between farmers who have had crop failures, nevertheless a good deal of discrimination will remain. And while we welcome this legislation, it should be pointed out some farmers will be denied the bonus, a bonus they would have received had this bill not been presented, since one-sixth of an eligible township may be excluded if the average yield is less than ten bushels an acre, whereas previously one-quarter could be excluded if the average yield was more than fourteen bushels an acre.
For the life of me I cannot understand why payments are not made on an individual basis; why this rectangular provision is retained. Crop failures do not often follow the shape of a rectangle. Very often you have crop failures because of the fact that a certain area missed a local rain shower; and local showers usually go in strips. The same thing applies to hail damage. If the provisions are retained with respect to the number of sections outside an eligible township that can be declared eligible, I should like to see the rectangular provision changed so that any section adjoining any other section could obtain the crop failure payments, even though only one corner might adjoin the corner of an eligible section.
Prairie Farm Assistance Act
From time to time a number of hon. members have seemed to wonder whether legislation like this should be continued. I want to point out that this act is most necessary for the protection and well-being of a million people in western Canada living within the area known as the Pallisei triangle. Under this legislation the government has accepted at least a small measure of responsibility for those people; but surely a great deal of responsibility rests upon this government, since it was responsible for the settlement of that area many years ago. I would point out, too, that surveys in that high-risk area show that over the years a great amount of wealth has been produced. For instance, a survey of sixteen municipalities around the city of Swift Current showed that between 1919 and 1941 more than $200 million of wealth was produced. While it is true that government assistance, both provincial and federal, in that area over the same period of years amounted to $25 million, still I think it was a good investment for the people of Canada, since by paying $1 to maintain people in that district the country enjoyed the benefits of production worth $12.50.
As I said before, these people are in a high-risk area. The only way you can farm efficiently there is by farming on a large scale; and in order to do that you must have a large investment in machinery. When these farmers have two or three good crops in a row they invest a large part? of their revenue in machinery, so they may farm an economic unit. Consequently after a series of crop failures as recently experienced farmers in that area face dire need.
I think it should be pointed out also that while there have been some improvements since 1939, when this legislation was passed, the liability of the government under the act has been reduced to some extent. The legislation of 1939 contained provision for the payment of $1 per acre to farmers who had yields of between eight and twelve bushels, if the price of wheat fell to less than 80 cents a bushel. For many years now wheat has been above 80 cents a bushel; we hope it will never again go to 80 cents a bushel or lower. Nevertheless, because wheat is at a higher price now than prevailed when this act was introduced the government's responsibility is somewhat lessened.
In addition I should like to point out that under the act the farmers are today contributing more than they did in 1939. The one per cent levy which was placed in that act in 1939 has remained unchanged, but in 1939 wheat was worth 50 cents per bushe'

Prairie Farm Assistance Act while today wheat is worth more than $1.50 at the local elevator. On the basis of the collections from wheat, the revenue from this act is three times as great as it was in 1939. At the same time, while the revenue to the government under this act has been increasing, the farmers' cost of production has increased at an alarming rate. I make the statement that the farmers' cost of production in western Canada is at least twice as high as it was in 1939. I could quote figures to show the increased cost of machinery, oil, lumber, wages and repairs, everything that goes into the farmers' cost of production, but I do not think that is necessary. Anyone who knows anything about farming in that part of Canada will agree that it is a moderate statement to say that farming costs have approximately doubled since that time. The payments to the farmers who are eligible under the act, however, have not been increased.
As I said a moment ago, on the basis of wheat, the collections from farmers have trebled. I can tell the house that the people in the high-risk area of Canada are not asking for handouts. When I talk to them about this act or when they discuss with me their needs for proper crop failure assistance, almost invariably they say this: "We want the payments increased, yes, and we want the benefits paid on an individual basis. We would be quite willing to pay an increased sum into the fund if in time of crop failure we would receive a sum of money sufficient to pay our expenses for one year". Farmers have told me they would not mind if the levy were increased from one per cent to two per cent or even three per cent. Some farmers in that area have actually told me they would not be averse to paying five times the levy they have been paying, if in return for the greater contribution they would receive payments much above the maximum of $2.50 per acre; payments of six dollars an acre on an individual basis.
If the government could see fit, as I think it should, to increase the benefits under this act the farmers within the high-risk area of the Palliser triangle would be happy to make increased contributions to the fund. As the minister stated, in the past one of the obstacles to improving the act has been the fact that the farmers of Manitoba have never obtained as much in benefits from the fund as they have paid into it. I do not blame them for objecting on that basis. I do not think the objection of the farmers of Manitoba should prevent the farmers of southwestern Saskatchewan or southeastern Alberta from securing a proper scheme of crop failure protection. Therefore I suggest to the minister that there should be a zoning arrangement


whereby the levies are greater in the high-risk area, the area of frequent crop failure as compared to the levies made in the areas of low risk, the area where crop failure is seldom experienced.
The announcement of the government's intention to bring in this bill was made at the session of parliament last spring. The minister did not find it possible to present the bill at that time and so I am glad to see that this bill will become effective as of August 1, 1949. In my opinion some P. F. A. A. inspectors in the southwestern part of Saskatchewan took advantage of that announcement, and went around during the election stating that if a Liberal government were returned there would be an increase in the payments under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act. One inspector who lives not many miles from my home said to me the night before I was taking the train for Ottawa, "Well, I suppose when you get there you are going to support the proposed increase to $5 an acre under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act". I cannot say where he got that idea, but I am saying that the Prairie Farm Assistance Act inspectors went around that part of Saskatchewan before the election saying that if the government were returned the payments would be increased.
I can say without fear of contradiction that the farmers are going to be disappointed in this bill since no provision is made for increasing the benefits under the act. I know that the Minister of Agriculture has received many petitions from farmers in that area. I have received petitions from many farmers in my constituency, in particular, a petition signed by approximately 300 people in the area around the towns of Wood Mountain, Fir Mountain, Glentworth, Flintoft, Canopus and Killdeer. In that area and throughout the whole crop failure area of Saskatchewan the farmers, businessmen and local organizations are asking that the payments be increased to at least $5 per acre. They are requesting the government, if the increases cannot be made under the act, at least to declare this a year in which an emergency exists in western Canada and take some money out of the consolidated revenue fund to make increased payments to those farmers who have suffered crop failure.
In the Leader-Post of November 12, I saw an article reporting the proceedings at the Saskatchewan wheat pool convention. That article points out that the delegates from all parts of Saskatchewan, and half of the delegates represented areas in which there were excellent crops, without exception supported a resolution calling on the federal government to pay at least $5 per acre to the

farmers who have had crop failures this year. I would plead with the minister and with members on all sides of the house to support an improved Prairie Farm Assistance Act. It is not a good thing for Canada if a million people are suffering because of successive crop failures.
In the present crop failure area there are farmers that have experienced as many as six partial crop failures since 1942. An almost total crop failure this year, after that long series of partial crop failures, has resulted in thousands of farmers being financially destitute. I say that it is the duty of the parliament of Canada to guarantee the million people living within the Palliser triangle a standard of living comparable to that enjoyed by other sections of the nation.


Mr. Charlton:: In view of the minister's assurance that this bill is to be sent to the committee on agriculture, I see no reason for taking the time of the house at the moment. I shall reserve further questioning until the bill is sent to that committee.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: After listening to the explanation of the Minister of Agriculture regarding the three proposals contained in the resolution, I may say that I think they are a definite improvement to the act. In view of the fact that this bill is going to be referred to the committee on agriculture, I intend to be brief in my remarks.
First of all, I may say that whilst these three proposals constitute an improvement to the act, they nevertheless do not go quite as far as we should like to see them go. In the first place, we should like the unit to be reduced to a smaller size than a half township; but more especially, we should like to see the minister get away from that rectangular block. I never could understand what the magic is about the rectangle. The minister seems to be exceedingly keen on rectangles. Under section 7 of the act, it used to be in squares. Now he has got it from a square to a rectangle. Why could we not have it in a circle or in a triangle or in any irregular shape? Why does he have to stick to a rectangle alone? I mean, if a piece of land is adjacent to a rectangle, why could it not be included with the rectangle? But unless it is within the confines of the rectangle, it is ruled out. It seems to me to be a peculiar provision.
Then we feel that the amount of the bonus could be increased. I think that the farmers in the drought areas have a fairly just claim in asking that the amount be increased. I realize that the P.F.A.A. is not a solution to
Prairie Farm Assistance Act drought. It was never meant to be. It is merely for the purpose of providing assistance to farmers who lost crops as a result of drought. But on the other hand, when you remember that this act was brought into force in 1939, at a time when wheat was selling at 70 cents a bushel, there seems to be some justification in asking for an increase at this time when all other costs have risen. I would not be prepared, however, to go as far as did the hon. member for Assiniboia. I think I am in a different position from the one he probably is in. I think he must reside in an area that is totally within the drought area. I reside in a constituency 75 per cent of which is in the drought area and 25 per cent of which is out. I know that the 25 per cent would object strongly to having the levy increased to 5 per cent unless it covered all forms of hazard; that is to say, if the government sought a levy of 5 per cent and made it cover all forms of hazard, then I am satisfied that the farmers all over western Canada would be prepared to have the levy raised to. 5 per cent. But they would not be prepared to have a levy of 5 per cent on the basis of the act as it is now constituted; that is, not across western Canada.


Mr. Wright:: In the Palliser triangle?


Victor Quelch: Even in the Palliser triangle. What is the Palliser triangle? It goes to Calgary, and goes down to Drumheller. You have in the Palliser triangle areas of land that average 30 to 35 bushels per acre. It takes in Drumheller, Morrin, Orkney and Rowley. They figure on 35 bushels to the acre. That is in the Palliser triangle. They never had a year when they were eligible under the act for the P.F.A.A. bonus. You could only ask for a 5 per cent levy provided you covered all forms of hazard and on a crop insurance basis rather than on the basis of the P.F.A.A.
I just want to say a few words with regard to the three proposals. Let us take the first one, which amends section 7 (a) of the act. I believe many farmers at first sight might oppose that amendment because, under it, it will now be possible for the government to withdraw from the benefits of the bonus a piece of land when the area is only six sections instead of nine. But on the other hand, I believe the amendment is a good one because it will help to reduce the discrimination that exists at the present time, owing to the way that section is drafted.
I will explain what I mean. At the present time, if there are nine sections in a square, with an average yield of over 14 bushels to the acre, within a township that is eligible that block can be withdrawn from the benefits of the bonus. But what do we find

Prairie Farm Assistance Act actually happens under that section? Very often we find that there will just be six sections with a yield of perhaps 20 bushels to the acre, and therefore the department cannot take that six sections out, because it must be nine. So to that six sections they add three sections that may have a total crop failure. But the average is still above 14. Therefore, as a result of that section, very often land is taken out of the township which has already been declared eligible and yet has suffered a total crop failure. There are several instances of that having happened. I think the minister will agree that that is a rank form of discrimination against the farmer who has had a crop failure, in view of the fact that he is residing within a township that has been declared eligible.
Under the amendment that area will be reduced to six sections, and therefore should make it easier to get the six sections than the nine. But even under the amendment there still may be discrimination because now it may be possible for them to find three sections with a yield of 20 bushels to the acre, and therefore they will be able to add to it three more sections with a total crop failure and still have an average of 10. I think in that section there should be included a proviso that no land can be taken out of an eligible township that has a yield of less than 8 bushels per acre. That would do away with the discrimination. I think that proviso definitely should be included in that section. I think the minister himself will agree that there is justification for that request. I am only asking for that to be done in a township that has been declared eligible. Once a township has been declared eligible, why should any section of land be withdrawn from the benefits of the act merely in order to make it possible to take some other land out that has a high yield?
As to the second proposal, I am thoroughly in support of it, because the situation at present is really absurd. At the present time you may have a township that is eligible. Then you may have another township alongside it that is ineligible. Yet you may have six sections along the edge of the eligible township that are denied benefits under the act because there are only six sections instead of nine. I think that any land that is adjacent to an eligible block should also be made eligible.
As to the third clause, as I have already pointed out, we are much in favour of having it reduced from a township down to half a township, but we feel that the proviso that it must be in a rectangular block should be modified so that any block of sections of land contiguous to one another equal to half a township could receive the benefits of the act.

There is one question I should like to ask the minister. Is there any understanding or regulation or provision or agreement which prohibits a province from increasing the cultivated acreage of land held by them in the drought area?


James Garfield Gardiner: No, there is no provision at all. As the land is broken up in the province, provision is made for payment just the same under that as under the land that is now broken up.


Victor Quelch: Even on land owned by the province? I am referring to land owned by the province.


James Garfield Gardiner: Yes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.
Mr. Gardiner thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 185, to amend the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[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.
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, during the few moments at my disposal before the house rose at six o'clock I had explained that it was my intention merely to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to deal with two questions when he closed the debate. In the first place I had asked him to go further in his statement on Canadian policy in the Pacific, pointing out the seriousness of the position in that area, and also the lack of interest in Pacific problems shown by the Canadian government.
I had also asked him concerning the proposed British commonwealth conference that is to be held in Colombo, the capital of the new dominion of Ceylon, in the month of January. Apparently the purpose of this conference is to consider the question of granting recognition to the communist regime in China and also the question of a peace treaty with Japan. I do hope that the Canadian government will not hesitate to participate in this conference. I hope further that the

Secretary of State for External Affairs will go to the conference himself. Press dispatches which announced it set out that the Right Hon. Ernest Bevin would in all probability represent the United Kingdom. I suggest to the government that it will be of sufficient importance to have our own minister represent Canada. I trust further that Canada will not hesitate to participate in any future conferences concerning Pacific problems. There has been an indifference and a reluctance to participate in these problems of the Pacific, which is not in line with the importance of the questions to every person in Canada.
If I may presume to make a suggestion to the minister, in the Pacific Canada would be very wise to work closely with the other nations of the commonwealth. Of course Australia and New Zealand view these questions in much the same light as we do ourselves, and we now have the further advantage of having the new independent nations of the commonwealth, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, ready and anxious to participate in these conferences. The British commonwealth, having interests in all parts of the world, must always of necessity stand for peace. That is true in the Pacific as it is true in the Atlantic. All these nations which will be meeting in January will have as their main concern not methods of making war in the Pacific but methods of preventing war.
I hope that in the Pacific Canada will not be a camp follower of the United States. These were the words used by the minister yesterday. While co-operating to the utmost with the United States I hope Canada will not let herself be put in the position of a camp follower. There have been actions in the past by this Canadian government, in dealing with Pacific affairs, which indicated that the attitude of the government was not very far removed from that of a camp follower. Just two years ago a British commonwealth conference was held in Canberra, and Canada sent our present minister of defence. But before we took part in that conference the Canadian government had the Canadian minister in Washington go to the department of the Secretary of State of the United States. I hold in my hand a press dispatch of July 28, 1947. The heading is: "Canada Assures U.S. No Jap Treaty 'Bloc' ". It tells of Mr. Hume Wrong, the Canadian ambassador, having gone to Mr. Norman Armour, the assistant secretary of state of the United States, telling him among other things:
I told Mr. Armour, what X am sure he already knew, that this conference does not and could not mean the formation of a common British front at the peace conference.
External Affairs
Then the present minister of defence, when he went to Canberra, made a speech; and, as he often does, he distributed copies of that speech to hon. members. I hold in my hand a copy of that speech. It was made on August 26, 1947. He took much the same line as had been taken by Mr. Hume Wrong in Washington. He said:
The conference should be useful in giving us an opportunity to exchange views in a free and noncommittal way. I daresay that no one here is in a position, even if he so desired, to commit his government to a course of action until an opportunity had been given to hear the views of other nations with interests in the Pacific.
It is very interesting to read the opinion of the Right Hon. Vincent Massey with regard to the attitude of the Canadian government at that time. As hon. members know, Mr. Massey has been both high commissioner to London and ambassador to the United States. He is our most experienced diplomat. I hold in my hand Mr. Massey's book entitled: "On being Canadian". At page 105 we find these words. He is dealing with Canada and the other nations of the British commonwealth reaching agreement on various questions. He said:
At all times we should refuse to accept the notion that there is any impropriety in our consulting together on any matter of common concern. When it was reported in the press in 1947 that we had assured the United States government that the forthcoming commonwealth conference on the peace treaty with Japan did not foreshadow the formation of a British "common front," these representations seemed both unnecessary and undignified.
I hope that there will be no such nonsense in connection with the conference at Colombo in January, and that the Canadian government will not feel that it must first go to the United States government and explain that no agreement will be reached at Colombo and therefore that the United States need not worry.
I would ask the minister, when he closes the debate, to state whether Canada is to be represented at this conference at Colombo, and also to tell us whether the government is in favour of a Pacific pact, similar to the North Atlantic treaty. He should tell us, also, where Canada stands in relation to Japan. Is it the belief of the Canadian government that the old imperial regime of Japan should be restored to power, or will the Canadian government insist that in Japan there be set up and maintained a democratic type of government?
Further, will the minister let us know whether the government has any proposals for reopening trade with China. Trade with that country is of vital importance to Canada, not only to Canadians on the Pacific coast but to Canadians from coast to coast. When the Canadian ambassador to China, the Hon. T. C.

External Affairs
Davis, returned a few weeks ago, he made a statement to the press. I have here a clipping from a Vancouver paper dated October 17, just a month ago today, under the heading "Canada-China Trade Could Re-open-Davis". The first paragraph states:
Recognition of communist China by the Canadian government is all that is needed to re-open trade between the two countries, T. C. Davis said here today.	:
We were told that Mr. Davis would be consulted upon his return and that the House of Commons would be told of the policy the Canadian government intended to adopt. Mr. Davis has now been back a month. Perhaps the minister will be in a position to go further tonight in telling us Canada's attitude toward recognition of communist China. To sum up on this first question, the time has come for Canada to take a leading part in Pacific affairs, just as she is taking in affairs of the Atlantic. I hope that will be the policy of the government.
The second question which concerns me and with which I would ask the minister to deal has to do with what one might call the continental front. Canada has an Atlantic front and a Pacific front; and we also have a continental front-or, in this case, it is in reality an Arctic front. What is the Canadian government's policy concerning the northwest portion of this continent on which we live?-and I emphasize the particular direction I have mentioned. I have in mind particularly Alaska, Yukon, the Mackenzie river basin, northern British Columbia and northern Alberta. It is time the government of Canada had a policy with regard to this area.
The United States is Alaska-conscious. In the last war the Americans had the experience of the Japanese seizing some of the islands which form part of Alaska, particularly the island of Kiska. Had it not been for a ruse on the part of the American navy and American airmen I am told Japan would have seized the next fortified base in the Aleutian chain. Now the Americans are in the position of having a potential enemy a great deal nearer Alaska than the Japanese were. Russia of course is just across Bering strait, only a few miles away from Alaska. During the war thousands of aircraft were flown from the United States to Edmonton, across the Yukon, Alaska and Bering strait to Siberia. Quite properly, the Americans are greatly concerned about Alaska and about the whole northwestern portion of this continent.
Within the last few weeks a measure has come before congress giving the President

power to negotiate with Canada for the survey of a railway line from Prince George in central British Columbia, up through the Yukon to connect with the Alaska railway. This has happened while the house has been in session.
A press dispatch before me from Washington dated October 4 bears the heading "U.S. Senate Committee Backs B.C. Rail Link", and states:
A move to merge the Alaskan railroad with the United States and Canadian railway systems moved: another step forward in congress today.
Then it goes on to describe what has been said about that bill. On October 26 President Truman signed the bill, which is described as one authorizing him to undertake an agreement with Canada which might lead to the construction of a 1,400-mile railway to connect Alaska with the American northwest. That, of course, should be of interest to the Canadian government. Certainly it is of the utmost interest to the people of western Canada. We are directly involved in this proposal. Yet our government seems to be holding back, and does not seem to be greatly interested.
Earlier in the session I asked this question:
Have there been any negotiations between the government of Canada and the government of the United States concerning the construction of a railway through Canada to Alaska?
The answer was:
There have been no formal negotiations, but informal discussions took place in September and October, 1942.
Although that question was asked while the United States was in process of passing the bill, apparently the government of Canada had had no discussion for seven years. My second question was:
Have any surveys been made or authorized by the Canadian government in connection with such a railway?
To which the answer was:
Yes, the Canadian government authorized the United States army engineers to make a survey in 1942.
Then about the middle of October we find this dispatch headed "U.S.-Alaska Railway-Far Off in Future." The article was written by Mr. Hardy, one of the senior members of the press gallery. The first paragraph of his article states:
Although the United States congress has voted funds to cover the cost of a survey for a railway route which would link the U.S. and Alaska through Canada, government officials here expressed the view-
And he refers to Ottawa-
-that it might be years before such a survey gets-underway.

The final paragraph states:
Officials of the Department of External Affairs said that in any event negotiations in connection with the suggested survey would take "a long period of time."
J udged by government standards that might mean a good many years.
On November 4 when we were discussing the bill to provide a subsidy to the Pacific Great Eastern Railway I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) about this matter. His answer is found as follows at page 1461 of Hansard:
As to the second question, with regard to the proposal of the United States, I understand that the bill to which my hon. friend referred has been passed by congress. Until representations are made on the official level by the United States government to the Canadian government, it is impossible to consider the question of a survey such as my hon. friend suggests.
Then I asked:
Would Canada participate in a survey?
The Minister of Transport replied:
I think the answer would depend on whether or not we are invited to participate. At the moment I am not aware that we have been invited. When we are invited, I presume we shall look at the position then.
It hardly befits a grown-up nation, such as Canada now is, to be so coy about suggestions of this kind. I submit that the Canadian government should have views on this matter, and should be in a position to disclose them to the Canadian parliament, and in that way to the Canadian people. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said that the St. Lawrence waterway should be developed. He rapped the United States over the knuckles for being so slow about making a move with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway. Perhaps we could help them to make up their minds if we offered to co-operate in connection with the railway to Alaska, which would not only benefit Alaska but would also be of great benefit to Canada. I do not doubt that they are just as anxious for us to make up our minds as to what we propose to do about the northwestern part of the continent as we are to have them make up their minds about the St. Lawrence waterway. I suggest there is great need now for a clear-cut Canadian policy for the Pacific northwestern area. I ask the minister to explain to us this evening the stand which the Canadian government takes on this question as well as the question which I dealt with earlier in my remarks.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I wish to commend the minister for the comprehensive review of current events in all parts of the world that he has presented to the house. Comments
External Affairs
from all sides of the house were so favourable that I think the conclusion is quite obvious that I can very well dispense with adding anything further. I am fully aware that the house is anxious to conclude this debate tonight, and I assure you that I will cut my remarks down to the minimum and not delay the house unduly.
It has been my privilege to represent Canada at the fourth session of the general assembly of the United Nations. Therefore, I was particularly interested this afternoon and yesterday when hon. members who had had that experience in the past gave their impressions of the organization. I was particularly impressed this morning with the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) when he said that he had been struck by the great prestige of Canada at the United Nations. I think that is the first impression anybody receives who goes to the United Nations, because it is paramount, and it is always very gratifying to a Canadian upon reaching the scene. I suppose there are many reasons for the high prestige that our country enjoys. No doubt a great deal of the credit goes to the minister himself because of his personal ability, with which most hon. members of the house are familiar. When you couple with that his many years of experience in the diplomatic field, and his very pleasant and engaging personality, then you pretty well have the reason why he enjoys so enviable a position at Lake Success, and thereby reflects credit upon Canada as a whole.
It was a tribute to his country when he was elected chairman of the political committee, the most important committee of that organization, but it was also a tribute to the man himself, because after all hon. members will realize that any man who assumes the responsibility of chairmanship of such a committee must have personal attributes to carry out that responsibility. The minister combines both the qualities necessary for leadership of the Canadian delegation and the required ability and experience to perform his duties as chairman of the political committee. Everybody is agreed in saying that he is doing a splendid job.
I also want to mention briefly that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) is bringing honour to his country at Lake Success. We all know that he can speak very forcibly, and with complete honesty and frankness. I should also like to mention to the house Canada's permanent delegate at the United Nations, General Mc-Naughton. I believe he is doing a splendid

External Affairs
job in New York for Canada. I do not think that any more conscientious delegate could be found. As we all know, he is an arduous worker, and possibly one of the most active members among the delegations. I should also like to mention that on the second day after I reached Lake Success I heard echoes of the reputation of St. Laurent and Ilsley still ringing in the corridors and the committee rooms.
Lastly, I want to join with the hon. member for Winnipeg North when he said this morning that a great deal of the credit goes to the officials of the Department of External Affairs. Most of them are young, hardworking men. As a matter of fact, by the standards of other delegations they are rather underpaid, but they are not just doing a job. They are pursuing a cause, and they are completely devoted to their task. There is no question that a great deal of the credit should go to these hard-working and able men. The fortunate position that Canada finds itself in also contributes to that prestige because, as has been mentioned, Canada is expected to and does approach all questions from an objective angle.
After all, we in Canada have no special axe to grind with anybody. In the past we have had delegations who have worked most strenuously and earnestly to try to further the aims of the United Nations. They have established themselves in the minds of the members of all delegations as being most sincere. In other words, they are known as people who do their homework before they go into the committee rooms.
For all these reasons, it is most gratifying to any Canadian to see the high place that our great country enjoys in the deliberations of this world organization. I would be remiss in my duty if I did not pass on to all hon. members of the House of Commons the gratitude of the various delegations that was expressed to me as a Canadian delegate when the name of a distinguished servant of this House of Commons was submitted for nomination this year. I refer to our Auditor General, Mr. Watson Sellar. As hon. members know, he has been chairman of the board of auditors of the United Nations ever since the organization was formed, and from all accounts he has done a marvellous job. He has contributed in large measure to the streamlining of the organization, and has made it more efficient and less costly. When his term expired this year everyone seemed very anxious that he should continue at his job, and begged that his name be allowed to stand again. Rarely have I heard so much praise for the work of
[Mr. Jutras.J
an official; and this too, I think, has contributed to the high place Canada occupies in that forum.
I listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) yesterday, when they gave their impressions of various conferences they had attended. Perhaps it is because my experience is still fresh and new, but I must admit I was most favourably impressed with the possibility that the United Nations organization might maintain peace in the world, not so much as we see that organization today but rather as we may hope to see it in a few years. Of course, unlike the hon. member for Peel, I was not at San Francisco when the United Nations was born, so I am spared the feeling of more or less frustration which he seemed to experience yesterday.
In our consideration of the United Nations I think it most important to remember that it is a permanent organization. I believe we should always avoid thinking of it as an experiment. We have built this organization, which is now only being completed. As a matter of fact we now have under construction a building to house the United Nations, and there is nothing temporary about the structure now rising in Manhattan, which will cost some $65 million, I hope it will help people consider the United Nations as something permanent.
We have experienced a great many crises of ideologies since the end of the war, and we have seen many movements toward national independence in various parts of the world. If we permit ourselves to think of the organization in terms of one aspect of its work only, or if we attempt to judge it on an immediate as opposed to a long-range view, that could be almost fatal to the organization.
At this stage I think it appropriate to recall briefly the basic premises at San Francisco, as I understand them. I believe the founders of the United Nations agreed that peace could be maintained only by a universal organization based upon a universally accepted charter. They rejected anything less or anything short of that; and they included all major forces at work in all parts of the world. The view held in some quarters that the founders of the United Nations might have contemplated that it would abolish all differences of interest and ideology is, I submit, a fallacy. I do not believe the founders of the United Nations ever contemplated that this organization would end differences of interest or ideology. They never contemplated that the great powers

would always act together in unity and brotherhood. No doubt they hoped and wished for that, but it was not necessarily one of the premises upon which the organization was founded. They did reject the concept that differences could be settled only on the battlefield, and agreed to keep those differences, ideological or otherwise, within peaceful bounds. That, I believe, is the aim and object of the United Nations. So far, I submit, the organization has done that to a marked degree. It is true that it has not succeeded in abolishing the fear of war, but I submit that it certainly has lessened that fear. It has also removed obstacles on the road to a peaceful world.
It was my privilege to represent Canada on the second and fifth committees. I do not wish to take time to explain everything the fifth committee did, but it is the committee that considers financial and administrative matters. Dealing with figures may sound rather dull, but there were certain compensating features. Since most resolutions involving the expenditure of money had to be referred to that committee, we dealt with most of the resolutions that came up for consideration in the other committees. To a newcomer like myself, that provided an opportunity of obtaining a more or less general picture of all the activities of the organization.
Too many people think of the United Nations in terms of the general assembly alone. I know I fell into that error at one time. But after all the general assembly is like our parliament here. When the session is prorogued, the work of parliament goes on. So it is at the United Nations; from the general assembly branch out all the commissions that carry out the policy that has been laid down. So I would recommend that all hon. members read the budget of the United Nations, in order to get a general picture of the activities of that organization. As I said, matters of policy are laid down by the general assembly; then commissions of inquiry are sent to various parts of the world to help nations that have problems and do not know how to solve them. These commissions find the source of the trouble and advise how it may be overcome.
Then there are what I consider to be the most successful of all, the political commissions of conciliation that are to be found in all the troubled parts of the world. They are sent out to try to bring a conflict to an end, or to offer solutions, or to prevent conflicts from arising, and in spite of certain
External Affairs
failures I believe they have been very successful so far. The world has every reason to be gratified at the success so far.
We listened to an interesting speech delivered by the member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), who told us of his experience in China. He emphasized the humanitarian efforts of the United Nations. This gives the members of the house an idea of the efforts of the United Nations in China, and the story of those efforts could be duplicated in many other countries if time permitted.
When we are considering the achievements of the United Nations, I should like to mention two or three. The resolving of the crisis with regard to Berlin has probably gone by with too little notice. Everyone will recall the tension that existed in the world when the four great powers reached a deadlock last year. I remember quite well the feeling of impending disaster which permeated the world. The newspapers were full of gloom. The question was brought before the security council in September of last year. At that time many people feared this question would break the United Nations. Conciliating forces were set in motion, however, and a committee of currency experts set out to break the deadlock by introducing a single currency into Berlin. This did not bring immediate results, but it certainly eased the tension. It reduced the threat of war and gave us the time to set other factors in motion. This resulted in the resumption of negotiations by the great powers after seventeen months of complete stalemate. I believe that the results achieved in this instance alone should make us grateful to the United Nations Organization.
I need not recall the Palestine question to which the minister referred. I believe everyone is quite familiar with it. The creation of a state in Palestine was probably one of the epic events of history, which was achieved without a major war. Then there is the example of Kashmir where a United Nations commission has known great success. Four hundred million people were involved, and they were spared the worst disaster of all, religious warfare.
In Indonesia the United Nations played a decisive part in the effort to secure a peaceful settlement of that dispute, and to secure a peaceful transition to national independence for 70 million Indonesians. More people live in those countries than in all of Europe. This gives one an idea of the importance of these efforts of the United Nations. We must remember that these achievements were accomplished without the aid of any military

External Affairs
forces whatever, because the United Nations does not possess any military forces as yet. It was merely the moral influence of the organization that asserted itself in the various parts of the world.
Is it unreasonable, Mr. Speaker, to believe that if the moral influence of this organization were allowed to assert itself for a few years more it could continue to help the world secure peace? In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say it is apparent that the United Nations Organization will serve us only to the extent that we put our faith in it and remain with it through thick and thin.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Speaker, up to this moment the debate has been enjoyable, but for anyone who has been listening for the slightest hint of the way out of the world's difficulties, the whole thing has been disappointing. One cannot help recalling the three lines from Tennyson's "In Memoriam" in which he speaks of,
An infant crying in the night:
An infant crying for the light:
And with no language but a cry.
I have not heard a suggestion of any proposal that would have the slightest chance of helping us out of the difficulties which confront us nationally and internationally. I am not in any way disparaging the fine speech the minister gave or the beautiful, sonorous and eloquent remarks of those who participated in keeping the debate on a high standard-but they did little besides that.
There seems to be a general agreement as to what ought to be achieved. Everyone talks about the necessity for having economic cooperation, and the impossibility of solving the world's problems unless we solve the economic problem. No one seems to be ready to venture a guess, however, as to how we might accomplish that thing everyone believes we ought to achieve. This is the general impression I have gathered after listening rather attentively to what has been said.
There are indications that the minister feels earnest enough about the international situation to begin to talk plainly to the people who surround us, including the United States. That is an indication of a sound attitude. I hope the minister will be earnest enough te face a number of unhappy facts which underlie the present lamentable international state of affairs. Unless we do face these unhappy facts it is impossible for us to understand how we got into the position in which we find ourselves or to form any idea as to how to get out of it. These unhappy facts and unsightly truths serve as infection or poisonous irritants that continually fester in the wounds of the world, rendering healing almost impossible.
IMr. Jutras.l
Let us deal with our perplexities. I do not think the main one is Russia. I believe that our main perplexity is that up to now the Anglo-Saxon race has not shown the elementary common sense to know how to distribute the goods it can produce. That fact underlay world war I and world war II, and that fact is driving us with irresistible force to world war III. One of the most dismaying aspects of all is that one finds it almost impossible to get most people to listen to anyone who may offer a solution.
How did we get into the position in which we are? May I give a sort of historical outline of the onset and development of the disease from which we suffer? In the first place, it must be recognized, and I believe is recognized by everyone in the house, that the nations of the world fall into two main classes, the "have" nations and the "have-not" nations. Between these two classes there is a vast gulf. The requirements of the have nations are altogether different from the requirements of the have-not nations. These have-not nations are in a position in which they must employ all their resources to a maximum. Think of such nations as Greece, Turkey and many others. They usually have difficulty in producing economically. The cards are stacked against them when they undertake to manufacture almost anything you can name. They may have one or two specialties, but nations cannot live on specialties, like the production of currants, raisins or sugar, alone.
These nations have real trouble surrounding them. They must produce as many of their needs as possible. They must trade for many of the necessities of life. They must therefore have adequate markets and adequate potential suppliers of each of the kinds of goods, raw or processed, which they require. This is purely a platitude that everyone recognizes in theory, but no one seems to recognize it when it comes to drafting treaties or to plotting practical world policies.
Then again these have-not nations must protect their home economies as they trade. This is another thing which one would think almost anyone would recognize, but somehow people seem to fail to recognize it when it comes to planning a course for the world to follow during the coming years.
The more fortunate nations have striven to trade for power and profit, not only just the needs of life, the things I have mentioned. The more power and wealth any given nation was able to get, the greater advantage it had in producing goods, in gaining markets and in gaining sources of supply. Because of this fact, any have-not nation in open competition-with non-discrimination flowering in its

beauty-with "have" nations which have had time enough to develop themselves to a position of power and wealth-any such have-not nation is faced with an almost insuperable obstacle, a fact to which I have found little attention given.
Britain expanded industrially from 1845 to 1875. Then she began to taper oil down to 1913. This is a fact that I did not always know, but it is a fact which made a tremendous difference in my thinking when I came to know it. Britain's trading policy was based largely upon two main principles. The first one was the gold standard, and the second one was free trade. She rendered the gold standard possible because she did a great deal of foreign lending. I do not propose to elaborate on that statement; it is not here fitting. Free trade worked for Great Britain because Britain was always able to accept goods in payment of any debt owing to her. On the basis of these two main principles she built up a sort of internationalism. This fact in the achievement of Britain has a tremendous influence on the thinking of our people today and so has a vast influence over the problems with which the minister has to cope when he goes down to meet our neighbour nation.
By 1913 Britain had found that powerful competition was developing from Germany, Belgium, Holland, France and various other countries. These nations, all being more or less have-not nations relatively, and finding it necessary to trade in order to get the raw materials they needed, competed really vitally with Britain. The time came when there were not enough markets in the world to supply the needs of all these nations. When the world reached the point at which Britain could no longer find enough markets for her goods to enable her to sell all of her production and get all her needs in respect of raw materials and foodstuffs, then Britain was facing danger. World war I broke out within one year of that time.
I suppose one would not be too unkind if one said that, fundamentally, world war I was the result of commercial rivalry between Britain and Germany. After world war I, I found that there seemed to be little discussion of the implications of that fact. People gradually got to the point where they did not hesitate to say that fact was what caused the war, but they did not do any thinking about what ought to be done because of it.
Several important changes in the world's economy took place as a result of world war I. Everyone knows that Great Britain no longer was the world's creditor nation after world war I, and that the United States
External Affairs
became the world's great creditor nation. But the United States refused to accept goods in payment for debt. This was a matter of enormous importance in its impact on the world's affairs. It is one thing to buy machinery, for example-in the case of Argentina, we will say-from a nation like Britain and to contract a debt with a nation like Britain, when we know that Britain will accept any goods we produce at a reasonable price in payment of the debt. But it is an entirely different matter to contract a debt with a nation like the United States which is quite as likely to refuse to accept any goods we might produce and offer in payment of the debt. Hence the fact that the United States became the world's great creditor nation, and refused to accept goods in payment of debt, resulted in an epoch-making dislocation in the world. From that dislocation the world did not recover even until world war II, and it is further still from recovery at the present time. Anyone who does not keep that fact constantly in mind, in facing the external affairs of this or any other country today, is overlooking one of the most vital aspects of the whole set of circumstances surrounding the problem.
Then during world war I, and especially right afterwards, there entered other potent factors that modified vastly the whole international set-up. In the first place there came into use huge machines, tremendous amounts of power, and technological skills never known before. For example, the United States learned how to make dyes and chemicals which she had not known how to make before. That had a cogent influence on the whole world's position, little as it might seem that such would be the case. From these three elements there resulted unprecedented production from natural resources, and a substantial increase of resources.
People began to learn how to make one thing out of another: fountain pens and combs, for example, out of skim milk. That increased the world's resources. Technological skills were playing a compelling part. Then there was the imminence of unemployment caused by the displacing of men by machines and power. You could not have all these elements entering into the world economic body without causing some sort of malady. What sort of malady would you expect? What sort of anti-body would you give the patient to offset the ill effects of these disturbing factors?
As a result of these three new forces, or new factors, there developed a widespread shortage of purchasing power in the hands of consumers, not only within any nation but among the nations. From this time forward

External Affairs
nations were struggling for trade, not only for the things which had activated them in their struggle for trade in former times, but for two new reasons: Firstly, to export their unemployment and dump it on their neighbour's doorstep, that is, to give their own people jobs at the expense of the people having jobs in other countries; and secondly, to put purchasing power into their people's hands. There had not been very much need of doing that before world war I. But these two reasons for trade had a profound effect on international affairs. The situation was becoming more dangerous day by day, and every new machine that came into use, every new means of using power, every new technological skill aggravated the situation.
Then came world war II. The world was a very sick world before world war II. Somehow or other thinking people have assumed that all they needed to do was to fight that horrible conflict and the world would come out a well world. I see no reason why anyone should make such a stupendous blunder in thinking, but such a stupendous blunder seems to be common.
As a result of world war II there were machines of a still vaster quality, power in even greater abundance, technological skills all undreamed of in proportion and variety until Dr. Charles A. A. Stine, in 1942, if I remember correctly, could tell a conference of chemists in Great Falls that since 1940 the world had discovered whole new continents of material; that we had between ten and a hundred times as much resources today as we had in 1940. This is a fact which is not given sufficiently careful consideration in assessing the situation confronting us and the world.
As everyone knows, the United States was greatly strengthened during the conflict of world war II. But every other nation except Canada was greatly weakened. Britain was seriously weakened. Somehow or other the American people, and somehow or other many Canadian people, seemed to think that Great Britain should be able to stand right up and go romping back to where she was before 1914. Many people seem to think that if anyone expresses concern with the welfare of Britain he must be an imperialist, not a Canadian, and so on and so forth, not stopping to realize that the welfare of Canada vitally depends on the welfare of Great Britain and her ability to buy our goods.
At the close of world war II, after the world had been carefully conditioned, especially the American part of it, there was an attempt to impose internationalism upon the

world. This attempt was made by the United States through the United Nations organization and the Bretton Woods agreement. I do not propose to go into details concerning either of these, but I will back up either or both of these two statements to the limit against anyone in the house or outside the house if we can get in committee where I can have the right to give evidence to prove my point. There was a definite attempt through San Francisco and the world organization to impose internationalism on the world. The attempt was made at the instigation of the United States fundamentally and primarily. I do not wish to find any particular fault with international organizations, but I pointed out very definitely on the floor of the house in the spring of 1945 before San Francisco just exactly what was in the wind; and exactly what I said was going to come to pass did come to pass.
An attempt was made to bind all nations to the gold standard and unconditionally to the most favoured nation clause through two documents or two treaties. The gold standard was to be established by the Bretton Woods agreement and the unconditional most favoured nation clause through the international trade organization; but they did not call the unconditional most favoured nation clause by that unsavoury name. They called it by the euphemistic title of nondiscrimination. The re-establishment of these two principles-the gold standard and the unconditional most favoured nation clause, in a world where the United States, as the chief creditor nation and the strongest nation of the world, refused to accept goods in payment for the goods which she sold- put every other nation except Russia in worse than an international and economic strait-jacket so that conditions were more difficult for every other nation than they had been in the whole history of the world.
Then another exceedingly important matter that must never be overlooked is this: Wherever we turn, whenever we listen to an hon. member speaking on the floor of the house or to any statement that someone like our good Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) makes when he returns from Washington or leaves Washington and wants to say something really clever, everywhere we turn we find those historical causes affecting the thinking of the people who are talking. Some of the most absurd things have been said during the last two months by prominent United States officials. Perhaps I shall examine this matter at some future time. I hardly think tonight is the appropriate time.

As a result of the way Great Britain developed, with the peculiar set of circumstances which accompanied her development, certain misconceptions have become fixed in the thinking of Anglo-Saxons. What are some of these? First the value of free trade. People have had the idea that because free trade worked for Britain then it must work anywhere and everywhere. Thus you find people rising and talking about free trade with the sort of religious fervour that one would hardly expect to be attached to anything except the Divine. Great Britain grew great under free trade. That is so. But what were the particular circumstances in which Britain found herself? May I name a few? Britain was a manufacturing nation primarily and fundamentally, with a very large population. Canada is not primarily and fundamentally a manufacturing nation; neither was the United States until recent times. Why should they expect free trade to work for them because it worked for Britain? Again, Britain had foreign investments, and was in a position to reap the rewards of foreign investments. She could receive any kind of raw material coming from any nation in which she had foreign investments. That is no sign that Canada could make foreign investments, let us say in the Argentine, and find them profitable. That is no reason why Canada should necessarily be able to accept goods which the Argentine may offer to pay for the interest on her foreign investments.
Again, Britain had a great carrying trade. Her people went down to the sea in ships in great numbers. Again, Britain was the world's banker. And she neglected her primary producers. All hon. members I believe have read about the corn laws and the great struggles which went on when the primary producers of Britain were trying to get themselves into a position in which they would not be sorely threatened by a tremendous amount of primary production coming from abroad because of a free trade policy. Canada has not the same attitude to her primary producers, and neither has the United States. Britain had an extensive empire from which she derived inexpensive raw material. She disregarded the welfare of her labourers in a way which the United States does not dare do-and which Great Britain does not dare do today. She paid them badly and she exercised rigid discipline over them, with the result that she could keep down labour costs. All these things entered into determining whether or not Britain could find it profitable to engage in free trade. Then she had great skills, attained
External Affairs
through generations of traditional "knowhow," as we call it today. Therefore she could afford to bring in all kinds of things from the outside. She could produce any manufactured article as cheaply as any other nation in the world could produce it, and therefore she had no fear of manufactured articles competing with her own in her own markets as she has today, if she is facing open competition with the United States. There was no other nation on the face of the earth which could afford to admit all imports duty-free, as Britain could, and this was because of these many different reasons I have mentioned.
Hon. members who have given some thought to the rise of Germany until the time of world war I, and the spectacular rise of Germany within a few years under Hitler, will remember that she sought to bring about, in her surroundings, circumstances which were similar to those which had been around Britain during the days of Britain's rise to power.
Certainly the United States, the present world creditor, cannot afford to import goods of every kind from all parts of the world, and she knows it. She therefore takes care of the matter by erecting tariff restrictions and import restrictions of many kinds.
So much for the first great misconception which has come into the thinking of the Anglo-Saxon world as a result of traditional information handed down, based upon the great period of development of Britain between 1845 and 1875. But we must not approach the problems of today with the same conception of free trade that Britain had in 1880, although many of us do.
There is another misconception, namely the necessity for a gold backing for money. When the British went off the gold standard about 1931 I am sure many of them thought that quite probably the planet would slip right off its axis. They were terribly upset -but they got along all right. There is no need for gold backing for money, and we all know that now. We do not hear any more than three or four persons in the house suggesting the need for gold behind our money. We know better today.
Another misconception is that state-created money, created debt-free, is unsound. That misconception afflicts virtually every member of the House of Commons today. It is a complete misconception. Because of it we are handicapped painfully and seriously in our day when we attempt to deal with the problem of distribution.

External Affairs
Another misconception we have inherited is as to the unsoundness of economic self-sufficiency-sometimes called economic nationalism. There are many people who think we can afford to let our textile industry go by the board, for instance, in order to be able to sell automobiles. But that is not sound economic thinking. A nation is much better off when it can produce most or even all it needs.
All of these misconceptions help us to see how it is we have got into the peculiar tangle of difficulties both material and mental which almost hamstring us today.
What is the solution? Doubtless the minister knows what I am going to say. However, I am going to say what I think needs to be said. I am going to go further, and say that unless those things I shall say within the next ten minutes are realized here we shall have plenty more difficulties.
I wonder if the minister is willing to give careful consideration to the opinion of certain respectable thinkers concerning the problem which besets us and the measures which are advisable to solve them-at least in part. May I bring to his attention a very important document, to my mind one of the very greatest documents in our possession in the world today. It is called "The United States in the World Economy". The information contained on the flyleaf states:
The United States Department of Commerce: Jesse H. Jones, secretary; Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, O. P. Hopkins, acting director.
The United States in the World Economy; the international transactions of the United States during the interwar period. Prepared in the international economics and statistics unit by Hal B. Lary and associates, with a foreword by Wayne C. Taylor, under secretary of commerce.
That sounds rather respectable, does it not? Then it states that it is published in the United States of America by the government printing office at Washington, in 1943, and reprinted by His Majesty's stationery office in London in 1944.
May I read the first two paragraphs of the foreword which, by the way, contains the recommendations and conclusions of the committee. If the minister has not read them, then I commend them to his most careful attention. It states:
The United States in the world economy represents the culmination of more than twenty years of research by the bureau of foreign and domestic commerce on the balance-of-payments and international-investment position of the United1 States. The bureau's first statement in this field appeared in 1923 and was followed by annual bulletins and numerous other studies until publication of international trade and financial statistics was suspended for security reasons.
This study offers a comprehensive and authoritative analysis of the international transactions of the United States from the end of world war I to the

beginning of world war II. Because of the endless ramifications of the subject and the innumerable refinements of statistical data that might be made, a study of this type is never finished. Publication at this time is prompted by the timeliness of the analysis.
It looks as though there should be something quite worthy of consideration in this booklet. It has a tremendous bearing on the external relations of every nation on the face of the earth, including Russia. And I would not be surprised if Russia knows more about what is in this document than most of us do.
May I read six short excerpts from the foreword which indicates the kind of thing this committee thinks is necessary to cope with the problem confronting us. At page vi it states:
The functioning of the American economy as a whole presents some of the most baffling problems. On the solution of these problems, through maintenance of a high and reasonably stable level of economic activity in the United States, the interests of this country and of other countries are most clearly and indisputably united.
This serves to indicate that the chief problem we face is the economy of the United States, not Russia. It continues:
A world economic structure organized on the basis of equal treatment and with large scope for free enterprise cannot be maintained in the face of such reductions in the supply of dollars as have occurred in our international transactions in the past.
During the Bretton Woods debate and during the United Nations debate we constantly had it stressed for us that we had to have an expanding economy. I can still hear those sonorous words. Yet an expanding economy, according to this committee, is quite impossible unless there are certain guaranteed conditions within the economy of the United States and in a lesser degree in Canada. Strangely enough little attention is paid to that committee! I quote again from the same page:
Unless dollars are made available with greater regularity than in the past, it would be both unjust and unwise to demand the removal of restraints and controls largely designed to protect the internal economies of other countries against external shock and pressure.
Notwithstanding the solemn words of that document officially handed to the United States administration in 1943, the United States jammed Bretton Woods upon their own country and upon the world, Canada included, and attempted to jam upon us the Geneva and Havana trade agreements and the ITO, directly contrary to the recommendation of this committee.
Where can these extra dollars which are mentioned come from? Can they be raised by taxation? I submit that any attempt on the part of the United States so to raise the funds

necessary to accomplish the objectives which are suggested in these three recommendations would be utterly suicidal. The only possible means whereby the United States can obtain the dollars is by dollars being created debt free by the state, much as they did with greenbacks in Lincoln's day. The minute a person mentions that, all the wise men from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) right on down smile superciliously. I am not saying they have that smile now.


Mr. St. Laurent:: We still have.


John Horne Blackmore: The important thing is that, if this is the only possible means, then the person who smiles superciliously about this suggestion is one of the greatest enemies of his country as well as of other countries of the world. That is talking very plainly, but it says exactly what I mean, and I think the future will bear me out. I hope we do not experiment until we have to learn by bitter experience in the future.
I should like to turn now to page 5 of the foreword and read three more excerpts.
The conclusion that emerges most emphatically from the survey is the fundamental importance of maintaining conditions conducive to a more stable and ample flow of dollars in our transactions with other countries.
Where are the dollars going to come from? Dollars in sufficient numbers to accomplish the objectives simply cannot be raised by taxation. The nation simply could not stand it. Again may I read:
The most essential of these conditions lies not in the field of foreign economic policy as such but in the attainment of a more fully and more smoothly operating domestic economy-the major determinant of the volume and course of our purchases of foreign goods and services.
I do not propose to discuss that because I have not the time, but there is much food for thought there.
In addition, a more adequate supply of dollars should entail both a freer flow of imports and a renewed and sounder participation of American capital in international investment.
The astonishing thing is that no attention seems to be paid to this matter of dollars. We all talk about how we have not got United States dollars. Great Britain cannot get Canadian dollars, but we do not seem able to think of any way to let them have Canadian dollars. We seem to think we ought to be able to take their goods, that they should be able to sell them to us for dollars. I do not think that is what is in the minds of the people who made these recommendations.
The question will be raised: where is the money coming from? I have indicated where it would come from. The other day I read into the record something which I am going
External Affairs
to read once more. May I suggest for the sake of the minister that he tell his department to work on the real solution of the problem, and that he read a little book called "Economic Tribulation" by Vincent C. Vickers, published in 1939. He not only needs to read it; he should also sleep with it until it becomes a part of him. Let me tell him that as far as I can see, and I believe it can be supported completely, the only possible solution to the difficulty confronting us lies in the suggestion contained in that little book. If ever any people were in economic tribulation, we surely are, nationally and internationally.
May I read the statement which I put on the record the other day? It was made by the Right Hon. Reginald McKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank, and a very important official in British financial affairs. In his report to the shareholders of his bank, as recorded in the Times of January 30, 1936, he uses words which ought to be very comforting to everybody concerned, including the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. These words are:
Additional currency, however, can now be furnished by the authorities, if they choose to exercise their powers without reference to the central bank's holding of gold. Thus the nineteenth century, which brought into general use a means of payment hitherto scarcely known outside London, brought also the machinery whereby it could be subjected to intelligent control.
We learned that a shortage of money may be just as vicious in its effects as an excess, though deflation has still a touch of virtue about it in the minds of many people. Nevertheless it is becoming more and more widely recognized that greater productivity calls for an increased supply of money, for otherwise prices will fall, business will stagnate, and the growing productive capacity will be unused.
If he did not give the answer to the question that arises in our minds, in the light of the recommendations of this United States committee, then it will require a great deal of careful explanation to prove that he does not.
I think it would be inadvisable for me to occupy any more time. There are a good many other things I should like to say but probably there will be other opportunities.
May I say in closing, however, that I agree with the minister that there is hope. A good many hon. members who have taken part in the debate have expressed hope. I agree with them, but we cannot have things work out well unless we use the right methods to get them to work out well. I do not think it will be fitting for us to stand by and wait for the divine powers to do it for us. The divine powers have blessed us with brains and we are expected to use them.
If the world were unable to produce abundantly it would be a different thing, but the

External Affairs
world is able ito produce abundantly all the goods that all the people of the world can use. The only thing that is wrong is that we do not use the right method of distribution. Distribution is a man-made mechanism and by man can be changed. We can produce abundance. We have abundant resources in the world. We have machines of undreamed-of efficiency and capacity. We have skills developing minute by minute so rapidly that we hardly dare allow them to be known among men. We have power developed so rapidly that we are bewildered. We have gasoline, electricity, coal, gas and now the atomic bomb. I do not suppose there is a member of the house who dares face the possibilities of what would happen if we began to use atomic power to the fullest degree in industrial production-what it would do in the way of producing abundantly and turning men out of employment. But it is there; it is an evidence of the productive capacity of the world.
There is no need for socialism. There is no need for a taxation structure that discourages production. There is no need for it at all. I have not time to go into it here but I will when the time comes. There is no need to destroy incentive by taxation or by production costs such as railway freight rates, and so on, and by too few markets. There is no need for all these things. There is no need to sacrifice Canada's sovereignty. So many people seem to believe that if we can only get rid of our sovereignty we shall be all right. What would have happened to us if we had lacked our sovereignty when the Minister of Finance found it necessary to impose the austerity program upon the United States? We would have been in a very cold world if we had lacked our sovereignty to enable us to take that measure. Well, there are plenty of other problems we shall require our sovereignty in order to solve. The British commonwealth works together wonderfully well with complete sovereignty in all parts of the empire. In world war II, after the imperial conference of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster, which made us autonomous, the commonwealth worked just as well as it had worked in world war I. What virtue can there be in lack of sovereignty?
I suggest to the minister-and before suggesting it I urge that he obtain an absolutely authentic treatise on the principles of social credit-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Here we are again with all the silly laughs. People who, to save their lives, cannot tell you what to do about the problems of the world can ha-ha like a lot of cackling hens at the mention of something

which might contain the solution. Until we change our attitude toward these new things there is not the hope for us that there should be. I suggest to the minister that he and his department become entirely proficient in the theory of state-created money and how to use it to solve the problems, national and international, that surround us today.


Mr. Pearson:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The debate I am now closing has been, as I think all hon. members will agree, illuminating, constructive and helpful, and also conducted on a very high level of non-partisanship. During the debate some generous things have been said about the department over which I have the honour to preside at present, and about myself. So far as I am concerned, though I am a comparatively new member of the house, I am very fortunate in the friends that I have here, and I thank them for what they were good enough to say about my work.
I am fortunate also in the fact that the external policy of Canada, in its principles and objectives, to the extent that any policy can be in a parliamentary system of government is non-partisan in character; and of course I am the beneficiary of that happy circumstance. I think it makes my job, at least so far as parliament is concerned, much easier than that of any of my colleagues.
As far as the department is concerned I should like to echo the good things which have been said about it. I agree also with the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) when he remarked that we should not get too complacent, that, if we have accomplished anything, we should cultivate the healing virtue of humility. I agree also that in the growth of our international activities through the department we should not make the mistake, as the hon. member for Peel put it, of trying to keep up with the "international Joneses". I can assure him, if assurance is needed, that we do not do that; in our department we merely try to keep up with our international responsibilities. That, I think, is as far as the Department of External Affairs should ever want to go. In that sense we have expanded in recent years. The hon. member for Peel referred to our "mushroom growth". That is true, in the sense that we have grown quickly. We now have thirty-three diplomatic missions in other countries; but I would point out that there are more than forty diplomatic missions in this country, so I do not think we have expanded beyond our responsibilities. The hon. member

for Peel also suggested that we must not run wild on expenses, and I quite agree. We are trying to run our department on a businesslike basis, and at the present time are making changes in our organization that we hope will make it more efficient, more businesslike, and of greater service to the people of our country. If we ever had any temptation to run wild on expenses, the appearance of our representatives before the committee on external affairs would always be a salutary check in that regard, to say nothing about our own Department of Finance and the treasury board.
In addition to the question of growth the hon. member for Peel also mentioned the question of recruitment, the type of people we are getting in the department. Well, we have tried to recruit our officers from all groups in Canada. It may be that at the present time we have not as many representatives of certain occupations as we should have, but I would point out to him, and to other hon. members, that we take young men into our department after competitive examinations. Whether they come from agricultural colleges or arts colleges or any other kind of colleges, we do not mind. We do not examine into their background in that sense. We have been fortunate, I think, in the type of men we have been able to secure, and I should like to pay tribute to them. Of course in the development of a young service it takes time for the young men to reach the top positions, so it is true that at the present time some of our missions are headed not by career men but by men we have brought in from outside, very often at considerable sacrifice to themselves.
In what I thought was a very constructive speech this morning the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) expressed the hope that we would recognize our career men by giving them top posts in the service. We do that. Of our present missions, sixteen are headed by career men who have risen through the ranks in the Department of External Affairs and four by men who have joined our department from other branches of the public service. It may be of some interest to hon. members if, as an example of our desire to recruit our officers from all parts of Canada, I say that of the twenty-four most senior posts in our service, ten are filled by men whose mother tongue is French. We try to build up our service not only as representative but as bilingual.
During the course of his remarks the hon. member for Peel mentioned the representation of other parties on Canadian delegations at international conferences. He has himself been a very effective representative of
External Affairs
Canada at more than one such conference. I agree that we should do what we can to keep our foreign policy as much as possible on a non-partisan basis; but under a parliamentary system of responsible government, in our actual representation at international conferences it is not easy to reconcile that kind of government with the inclusion of representatives from opposition parties. The difficulty, of course, is that full membership on delegations by representatives of other parties might limit their complete freedom of action, by placing them in a position where they would have to share responsibility for decisions taken. I am not sure, however, that we cannot accomplish the purpose we have in mind by attaching representatives of other parties to our Canadian delegations, on suitable occasions, as parliamentary advisers. We have done that in the past, and it has worked out quite well. Possibly in the future it may be well to try it again.
Insofar as the growth of our external service is concerned, and some reference has been made to that by various speakers, I should like to mention that during the last year the number of people in our department at home and abroad has increased only from 1,213 to 1,248. We are doing our best to keep our numbers and our expenses within limits.
During this debate the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) as well as other members have mentioned the desirability of providing the people of Canada with all possible information as to our external policy-what we are doing and why we are doing it. I agree with them entirely as to the importance of this responsibility. In a democracy foreign policy must be based on intelligent public opinion. Public opinion will not be intelligent unless it is informed. It will not be informed if the government does not take the people into its confidence in this field to the greatest possible extent.
I noted in his statement-I hope I am not doing him an injustice-a feeling that we were not doing as much as we should in this regard. To support that feeling the hon. member made reference to an article by a prominent newspaperman which was critical of the information activities of this department. I agree that not very long ago it may well have been that the information activities of our department and our facilities for informing the people of Canada on external affairs were not as extensive as they should have been. I would however inform the house, Mr. Speaker, that it was not very long ago that we wound up the Canadian

External Affairs
information service and initiated the establishment of an information division in the Department of External Affairs. It was inadequate for the job it was supposed to do, not in quality but certainly in quantity. We cut down to the very bone, so we were not able to do all the things we would have liked to have done. We are building up on that foundation and have reached a point, I think, where we are doing a better job than we were a few years ago.
I would not plead guilty-I am not suggesting any charge has been levelled-to the charge that we have defaulted in this obligation to keep the people informed as to what the government is doing in the field of external affairs. I have in my hand a report of the documents that are issued by the department in an effort to inform those who are interested in what we are doing. The annual report of the Department of External Affairs is now a comprehensive document. The annual report of the United Nations' activities is also a comprehensive and useful document outlining government policy. In addition to that the department has commenced the publication of a monthly bulletin on external affairs which includes articles, memoranda and other information explaining the policy of the government in this field. I have no doubt some hon. members have had an opportunity of reading that bulletin. In the recent issues we have attempted to explain not only what we have been doing but why we have done it.
That is one thing, but it is quite another thing, Mr. Speaker, to indulge in what I may call house-top diplomacy. There is a danger in prematurely making public the difficult, delicate and confidential negotiations between our government and other governments. I believe a good example of how that sort of thing should be conducted can be found in the negotiations leading up to the signing of the Atlantic pact. Long before that important pact was signed the government took various steps, through public statements of one kind or another, to inform the people of this country of the purposes and principles of government policy in respect to this matter. This was done while the discussions were under way in Washington. As I see it, however, it was neither necessary nor desirable to keep the public informed on the day-to-day details of those negotiations. There has to be a certain flexibility in these matters, and that flexibility would be lost if the press knew every detail of the negotiations every day.
Quite often one has to take a position in the morning which may have to be abandoned the next day. As I have said before, it is difficult to abandon a headline, and anything

that is made public in the morning becomes a headline in the afternoon. The type of diplomacy, if I may put it this way, of publicity for the principles and objectives, publicity for the policies in broad outline without making public the confidential details of the negotiations, seems to me to be best designed to reconcile the efficient conduct of diplomatic business with the desirability, indeed the necessity of the people knowing what is happening when it is happening. I hope that in the future the Department of External Affairs will be able to discharge that responsibility to the public and to parliament.
There have been a good many questions raised in this debate, Mr. Speaker, and it is my duty to do my best to answer them. If I may, I shall answer them more or less in the order in which they were submitted. An extremely important matter was touched upon by the member for Peel and the leader of the opposition in their references to the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes in this country. It was suggested that possibly the industries of this country were not being given the same facilities, the same information or the same assistance by the government in regard to atomic energy as the industries in the United States. That is an understandable preoccupation, but I can set it at rest because I am in a position to state that there is no agreement or understanding between the Canadian and United States governments which limits the information available to Canadian industry to any greater extent than it is limited in the case of United States' industry.
It is true that we do consult with the United States and United Kingdom governments on the release of information, and discuss with them the maximum extent to which information can be made available in the three countries consistent with joint security. The necessity for secrecy which was mentioned in the statement made the other day by the president of the research council, Dr. Mackenzie, to which reference was made by the member for Peel, arises of course from the fact that the material of atomic energy is the same whether it is used for peaceful or warlike purposes. Naturally, that factor has to be taken into account by all governments in their release of information to industrial concerns, but the secrecy requirements in this regard are the same in all three countries. While it is true that the United States has turned over to private industry the operation of certain of its atomic energy plants which are operated on a commercial scale, the information gained from the operation of these plants is no more widely disseminated to industry in the United States than it is to industry in Canada. The

Canadian government has already called industry together to point out the commercial uses of radioisotopes that are now available from Chalk River. It has offered to train men from industry in the use of such isotopes and for a period of one year has offered to supply radioisotopes to industry without cost. Several Canadian industrial firms are already taking advantage of this offer.
During the debate a good deal of attention has been devoted to questions which concern the Far East and the Pacific. We have had some interesting statements devoted to that part of the world. I was particularly interested in listening to the statement of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), with whom I was once associated in UNRRA activities. I can assure those members who have expressed some concern at our alleged lack of interest in Pacific problems as compared with our absorbing interest in north Atlantic and European problems-and I am thinking more particularly of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) - that there is on the part of the government no such lack of interest in the Pacific.
In his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra and, I think, another member as well, referred to certain talks that the press had reported as having recently been held in Canberra. They both expressed some interest in the fact that Canada had not been represented at those talks.


Howard Charles Green: I mentioned Singapore.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was one reference to recent talks in Canberra. The Singapore talks took place some months ago. The Canberra talks to which the hon. member made reference took place only a few days ago. The reason we were not at those talks is, of course, that we were not invited to them. That statement is not as drastic as it may sound because our information is that the talks were informal ones arranged in Canberra by the Australian minister for external affairs with the New Zealand deputy minister of external affairs and an under secretary from the United Kingdom foreign office in charge of Far Eastern affairs who happened to be in Canberra at that time. No formal conference of any kind as far as we know took place.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra also asked the government whether they proposed to take part in the conference of commonwealth external affairs ministers which has been called to meet in Colombo, Ceylon, in January. I had already intended to speak on this matter because it was only today that it was agreed among the governments concerned that publicity could be given to it. I am in a position to tell the house that we
External Affairs
have received from the prime minister of Ceylon an invitation to attend the conference in question.
It will be recalled that about a year ago, in the report of the meeting of prime ministers in London, reference was made to the desirability of having meetings of commonwealth ministers of external affairs from time to time when the situation seemed to warrant such meetings. The government of Ceylon has called this meeting, and the government of Canada is, of course, happy to accept the invitation to participate in it; it is particularly happy because of the fact that the meeting will be held in the newest of the independent nations that make up our commonwealth. We are particularly glad that this meeting will take place in an Asian dominion and that in that sense it will reflect the importance of the new Asiatic members of the commonwealth.
The government will be represented by a minister. It has been suggested that that minister should be the Secretary of State for External Affairs. But that particular minister has been away a good deal in the last two or three months; and although there is nothing he would like better than to spend the month of January amidst the balmy breezes of Colombo, I am not quite certain at this time who will be the representative of the government. I may not be allowed to go.
The conference in question, as I understand it, will deal with external affairs of general interest to the commonwealth and will not confine its activities to Pacific or Far Eastern questions. Nevertheless, a Canadian representative at this meeting will be willing and anxious to participate in that part of the agenda because we appreciate the importance of Pacific questions, especially at this time.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said that the puzzled and confusing Chinese picture should be unveiled. It may be that we shall be in a slightly better position to unveil that picture after the conversations that we shall be having in Colombo. I can assure him, Mr. Speaker, although I do not think the assurance is necessary, that it is a puzzled and confusing picture, and it is difficult indeed to unveil it at the present moment so that any recognizable features appear. In my statement yesterday I attempted to underline some of the principles that governed our policy in regard to that part of the world, and I do not know that I can go much further at this time than I went yesterday. I should like to mention one thing, though, because reference was made to it in

External Affairs
this debate. I can assure the house that no pressure of any kind from any quarter has been brought to bear on the Canadian government to recognize or not to recognize the communist government of China.
Reference has been made to the possibility of a Pacific pact to parallel the Atlantic pact, and I was asked if I could express the policy of the government in this respect. I can only say, as I believe has been said already, that it is not possible to draw an exact parallel between the two situations. The countries of the north Atlantic were ready for a security pact. All the countries concerned, with the possible exception of one-and reference has been made to that this afternoon-were all anxious to join such a pact and there was no difference of opinion in regard to the principles of such a pact. But that is certainly not the situation in the Pacific at the present time. Those countries which are at least as concerned as we are in Pacific matters-and I am thinking of Australia, India and the United States-have all stated, through their responsible representatives, that it would be premature at this time to attempt to negotiate a Pacific pact. That being the case, I think we would be making a mistake if we tried to press ahead with this matter at this moment.
Questions were also asked as to our policy in regard to Japanese political developments and trade with China. With regard to the former, as I said yesterday, I think that the governments concerned should press ahead with the Japanese peace pact and that all of us, individually and collectively, should do all that we can to strengthen the building up in Japan of a democratic government that will be a centre of peace and stability in that area. But there are times when I feel-and I have attempted to express this opinion before-that we should be careful to recall that it was not so long ago when the menace from Japan seemed almost as terrible as the menace from other quarters in the Far East seems at the present time. And we should not lose sight of what might be an ultimate danger because of the immediate danger that is ahead of us. Therefore when we are encouraging the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Japan let us make sure that we are helping to build up a democratic peace-loving Japan.
As far as trade with China is concerned, Mr. Speaker, there is no argument on that score. Nothing can be more important to Canada than building up trade with the Far East, including China; but one essential element in the development of trade with the areas over which the writ of the communist

government now runs is to establish some kind of contact with that government. So naturally the promotion of trade is part of the problem of our relationship with the communist government in China, and the two cannot be separated.
In some of the statements that have been made in this debate, Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to the European situation and certain questions have been asked of me in that regard. Some of these speeches have filled the gaps in my own statement of yesterday morning, and have added, I think, very materially to the information of the house with respect to European problems. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said that in my statement it would have been helpful if I had said more about the situation in western Germany and western Europe. I agree it would have been helpful if I could have said more. Although I spoke for quite a long time, I admit, Mr. Speaker-and in fact I stated at the beginning-that there were serious omissions in my statement. I did not say very much about western Germany or indeed about western Europe. I did say, however, and I should like to repeat it, that we welcome the establishment of a federal democratic government in western Germany. We hope that it will soon be able to extend its jurisdiction over a united Germany. The development that has taken place already has a bearing, of course, on the German peace conference. It looks now as if the possibility of holding a peace conference for the whole of Germany is more remote than it was a year ago. This is of course due to the split in Germany itself, and the difficulties at the present time of establishing a modus vivendi with the Russians which would make possible the healing of that division. Meanwhile we have the western federal state of Germany which has become a going concern. We are recognizing that development by planning to establish very shortly a mission to represent Canada at the capital of the state, which is Bonn, We will for that purpose be appointing, as head of our mission to Bonn, the official who is now the head of our military mission in Berlin. This change in the situation in Germany will make it possible to reduce the mission in Berlin to the status of one or two officers.
Reference was made also by certain speakers to the position in regard to the German and Austrian peace treaties. I have mentioned the German peace treaty. So far as the Austrian peace treaty is concerned it looked a few weeks ago as if substantial progress had been made and that an Austrian peace treaty might soon be worked out by

the four great powers. But there are still difficulties in the way, and these difficulties seem to revolve around the impossibility of the U.S.S.R. on the one hand and the other three states on the other hand getting together over the difficult question of reparations.
A more important point, I think, was mentioned by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) this afternoon, and was touched on by other hon. members in other statements, when I was asked to clear up the question of our commitments under the North Atlantic pact. I stated in my remarks yesterday that we did have such commitments, and I repeat that statement now. However, it was pointed out this afternoon that my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in a statement in this house the other day had said that we had no commitments under the North Atlantic treaty. There might, therefore, seem to be some contradiction in these two statements; but I submit, Mr. Speaker, that there is no such contradiction. When the Minister of National Defence was speaking in the debate to which reference has been made it was quite clear, at least to my mind after reading his statement, that he was referring to the military aid commitments which result from the implementation of the treaty. That seems to me to be clear from a reading of the paragraph in question. If I am in order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat what the Minister of National Defence said at that time. He said, as reported at page 1698 of Hansard:
It is perfectly clear that we have no commitments whatever under the North Atlantic treaty. The organization under the treaty has just been set up. The regional groups have been organized and the appropriate officers and representatives of the various governments concerned are considering what should be the various strategical plans and requirements.
This is expressly dealt with in paragraph 12 of the statement I gave, in which I said:
It is still too early to spell out the consequences of the pact in terms of men and dollars."
What I was referring to when I said we had commitments was the political commitment which we undertook in signing this pact and that commitment, of course, stands and is accepted not only by the government but I think by all hon. members. That political commitment is to come to the help of any member of the alliance if that member is the victim of aggression. We accept that commitment. It is a commitment for the defence of Canada, by coming to the help of our partners in the alliance if those partners should be attacked. That is a political commitment which we undertake. How that commitment shall be worked out, though, is another matter.
External Affairs
Yesterday when the hon, member for Peel was speaking he mentioned the fact that no details had been given the house or the country in regard to that particular commitment. But I would point out to him and to the house, Mr. Speaker, that it took us nearly a year to work out the political commitment which I have mentioned, and we have only just begun to work out the plans which constitute a military commitment under the treaty. We have signed the treaty; we have laid the basis of the organizations required under the treaty. There remains to be worked out the contributions which each government shall make in carrying out these political pledges, these contributions to be effective once the aggression has taken place and is recognized as such by the members of the alliance, including Canada. This development of the treaty has just begun, and it will take some time to work it out. Therefore it will not be possible to know exactly what are our military undertakings and our military commitments until that development is completed. I think that if it is clearly understood, Mr. Speaker, that I was talking about the ultimate political commitment in the treaty and the Minister of National Defence was talking about the military undertakings which we may have to take in order to discharge our political commitment, it will be clear that there is no contradiction in the two statements.
Many references, Mr. Speaker, were made during the debate to the United Nations and our policy in regard to the United Nations. I would merely like to repeat in that regard that our adherence to this organization remains the cornerstone of our external policy.
We are having difficult times at Lake Success. It is not easy to make the United Nations the effective organization for peace we all hoped it would be. One evidence of these difficulties is that we have had to work out regional arrangements not outside of, but supplementary to the United Nations. Nevertheless I would like to emphasize again that these regional arrangements, whether they be political such as the North Atlantic pact or whether they are financial, along the lines of the talks we have had to have with our friends from the United Kingdom and the United States, or of whatever nature they may be-these regional arrangements remain secondary and supplementary to our adherence to our world organization which we hope will some day make all such limited arrangements unnecessary.
That is not possible today. The reason is, of course, as I need hardly repeat, the split

External Affairs
in the world between west and east, which reflects itself in practically every undertaking of the United Nations. So long as that split remains it is absurd to think, and we would be only deceiving ourselves if we did think, that the United Nations as a universal organization can discharge the function of preserving peace which it was set up to discharge and which some day we hope it will discharge. But before that can be done we have to bridge the gap between the communist east and the democratic west. Though that problem at the present time seems almost insuperable, we must keep working toward its solution.
This afternoon the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said that the best hope for that solution was by somehow getting to the people of the communist countries. If we could pierce the iron curtain and get to the hearts and souls of the people behind it I am sure, just as he was sure, that we would find they are as peace-loving as the rest of us. If we could sweep away that mistrust and hatred that has been caused by the tyrannical masters of the Russian people, if we could sweep that away and get our own message across to those people, then that split would be healed and we would have a world organization which would be universal indeed; which would do the job it was designed to do at San Francisco, and which some day it will do.
Reference has also been made in this debate by more than one speaker to the prestige Canada now has in the councils of the world. I think it is true that we have such prestige. If we do have it, then it is due to the exertions, to the intelligence and to the sacrifices of the Canadian people. It is upon this that our prestige has been built; especially on the achievements and sacrifices of the Canadian people in time of war. Those of us who have particular jobs to do which take us into the world of international affairs can add a little to or detract a little from that prestige. But it has a deeper foundation than the work of any individual, of any government or of any party; the foundation of our prestige is in the character, the hearts and the achievements of our Canadian people. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, I am so encouraged by the debate we have had in the last two days on external affairs. I believe in this debate we have had a fine reflection of the feelings of the people, and their constructive approach to these questions of external affairs.
It has been made abundantly clear in the debate that the objectives we have in mind are shared by all of us. We have the same

objective. We are all striving to get to the same goal-at times probably by different routes-and that goal is the establishment in this world by international action of conditions in which every man, every woman and every child in any country of the world can live out his life in stability and security and peace.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. J. A. Bradeile (Cochrane) moved:: That the special committee on external affairs be empowered to sit while the house is sitting.


Gordon Graydon: May I take the opportunity when this motion is being put to inquire from the chairman of the committee on external affairs when he expects the committee to sit tomorrow?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I do not believe it will be possible for it to sit tomorrow, in view of previous engagements made by several members. But I expect the first sitting will be next Tuesday morning.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will go into committee of supply and take up the estimates of national defence, secretary of state, veterans affairs and justice.


Gordon Graydon: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be here next week?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid it will be impassible for me to be here next week, because of my duties at Lake Success. I regret that it is not possible to hold a meeting of the committee on external affairs tomorrow.


Gordon Graydon: It can be held.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to attend a meeting tomorrow, or to attend a meeting on Saturday.


Gordon Graydon: I changed my arrangements so as to be here tomorrow, because I expected there would be at least two meetings of the committee tomorrow. I would like to see the decision reversed, if it can be done without inconvenience to others. We should have the minister here and, since he can be here tomorrow, surely there is no reason why we cannot hold a couple of good meetings of the committee.

Mr. Cold well: I would join in that with the hon. member lor Peel. When the announcement was made by the Chairman that the committee was not going to meet tomorrow I thought that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had been called away. However, if he is to be here tomorrow every effort should be made to call the committee together some time tomorrow, even if it is late in the day. If it is difficult to get notice of the committee in the morning, we should try to meet some time in the day.
Business of the House


Mr. Si. Laurent:: Would it be possible for the chairman of the committee to set an hour which could be taken as notice of the meeting?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


Gordon Graydon: Eleven-thirty.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Very well, eleven-thirty.


Gordon Graydon: We should have two sittings of the committee tomorrow.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, November 18, 1949