1952-04-01

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Hughes Cleaver (Hallon) presented the first report of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
31st March, 1952
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Tuesday, the 1st April, at five o'clock, p.m., for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 91, respecting Gulf Pulp and Paper Company.-Mr. Brisson.
Bill No. 92, to incorporate the Perth Mutual Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Corry.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That on Wednesday, April 2, 1952, and every Wednesday thereafter to the end of the session, government notices of motions and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except introduction of bills, questions by members and notices of motions for the production of papers.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: I am
not going to press this point very strongly, but yesterday was a private members' day and by unanimous consent it was given over
to government business. It has been suggested to me that one more Wednesday afternoon might be given to private members and that this motion might be deferred for one week. As I say, I am not strongly pressing the point, but I make the suggestion to the Prime Minister on behalf of those who have suggested that this might be done.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Under ordinary circumstances I should be very happy to comply with the suggestion so graciously offered by the hon. member, but since the beginning of the session endeavours have been made to have two debates, one on external affairs, which I hope may be concluded some time today, and immediately following that another debate on defence. It was hoped that it would be possible to start this second debate on defence, which I understand all hon. members wish to have, tomorrow when without unanimous consent we can move to go into committee of supply and have the debate on that motion. I am sorry it does not happen to be convenient to comply with the hon. member's request. Perhaps we might consider suspending this order a week from Wednesday, or try to make it up in some other way that would satisfy hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a bill to amend the National Defence Act to effect certain changes respecting the discipline and administration of the forces; to provide that persons who commit grave breaches of the Geneva conventions of 1949 may be tried out of Canada by court martial; to amend the Defence Services Pension Act to provide that the total emolument, by way of salary and pension, payable to a pensioner who is employed as a civil servant may be adjusted in accordance with current rates of pay and allowances of the forces and to provide that members of the forces who are otherwise eligible for pension may be permitted to count periods of full-time reserve service of a continuous duration of six months or more for the purpose of determining the amount of pension; to amend the Civil Service Superannuation Act to enable a person who served overseas with the Royal Canadian Navy during the second world war otherwise than at sea to count such service for the purooses of the Civil Service Superannuation Act

Inquiries of the Ministry notwithstanding that the time for election to count such service has expired; and to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act to make the provision respecting the eligibility of servicemen to sit as members of the House of Commons consistent with the provisions of the Canada Elections Act.
He said; His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners, to extend the boundaries of the harbour, and to provide for a loan of one million, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the harbour commissioners for the purpose of constructing additional dockage facilities in the harbour.
He said: His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I have not given notice, since the subject was brought to my attention only a short time ago. In view of the report appearing in a Canadian Press dispatch today that the seven ships of the Ming Sung Company are being prepared for a dash from Canton to Shanghai, I would ask if the government has taken any action and given any instructions in connection with these ships.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have not seen the dispatch, and I had no information about preparations being made for a dash. The only instructions of which I am aware are those that have been given by the banks, at our suggestion, to take such proceedings to arrest the ships as it may be possible to execute in those eastern waters.


George Alexander Drew: Then may I ask a supplementary question? Have any steps been taken yet to deny to these ships the right to fly the Canadian flag?


Mr. Si. Laurent:: There are no steps that can be taken to deny these ships the right to fly the Canadian flag, other than to erase them from the register on which our mortgages are recorded, and nothing has been done to erase them from the register.


George Alexander Drew: But I would point out to the Prime Minister that there is an order in council which gave these ships special permission to fly our flag, under special circumstances-


Mr. Abbott:: No.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; the order in council permitted these ships to operate under rules other than those which ordinarily would not permit the use of the Canadian flag. Until that is rescinded the original status stands, and I ask whether that order has been rescinded.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: That order is no longer operative. I am not sure just what was done about it. The form of the order was, I think, a dispensation by the Minister of Transport of the requirement that all officers be British subjects. That is the only exemption that was made, and that is no longer operative. I will have to inquire as to just how it was dealt with. I do not think that was an order in council. I believe it was merely an exemption granted under ministerial power by the Minister of Transport, but I will look into it and inform the hon. gentleman just what was done about it and when it was done.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. T. Richard (Ollawa Easl):: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Will he give consideration to granting civil servants and prevailing rates employees a holiday on the Saturday following Good Friday?


Hon. F. G. Bradley (Secretary of Slate):: shall be very glad to take the matter into consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Major James William Coldwell: must direct a question to the Prime Minister, since I am rather confused about the business for today. I understood the Secretary of State for External Affairs to indicate that the motion approving the treaty with Japan would be taken up later this day. This

morning I understood from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that there had been some change, and that redistribution might be taken up after the external affairs matters had been dealt with. Has that order been changed?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: If I might answer that, the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked that this motion stand until later this day as part of the understanding that if the debate on the motion to go into supply wound up before five o'clock, we would proceed then with the motion concerning the Japanese peace treaty.


Major James William Coldwell: I am not clear yet. If the debate goes beyond five o'clock, what is the order?


Walter Edward Harris: Redistribution.



LAKE ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: May I ask the
Minister of Public Works if he has had an interim report from his officials who are investigating the acute erosion problem on the shores of lake Ontario?


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Graydon: It is no laughing matter, as you would realize if you had seen it as I did last week end.


Alphonse Fournier: I hope the remark of the hon. gentleman did not apply to me, because I was not laughing. Every morning I have a meeting with the officials of my department, and they are investigating the causes of this erosion and the floods. You will understand that before we know all the causes of the erosion it is impossible for the government to come to a definite decision.


Gordon Graydon: Is any personal inspection being made by members of the department?


Alphonse Fournier: Our engineer in
Toronto has been instructed to visit the location and survey the damage.


Gordon Graydon: When will that be done?


Alphonse Fournier: He is actually doing it, and has been for some days.


Mr. Adamson:: Is the engineer co-operating with the special committee set up by the Ontario government?


Alphonse Fournier: When that co-operation is requested, I shall instruct him to co-operate to the fullest extent.
Supply-External Affairs ARMED FORCES



QUESTION AS TO COMBAT PAY FOR SOLDIERS IN KOREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?\nAt six o'clock the house took recess."]
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the Associated Press dispatch that the United States government has voted extra combat pay of $45 a month to all officers and men serving under enemy fire in Korea-


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


George Harris Hees: -will the minister tell the house whether the government is planning any similar action with regard to the Canadian forces?


Brooke Claxton: The Canadian forces are already in receipt of additional pay for service in Korea.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Wright.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment which was moved by my desk-mate on March 25, as recorded in Hansard at page 771. That amendment, which I had the honour to second, reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out, and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty."
We in this group, Mr. Speaker, feel that the offering of that amendment is one of the most significant events in the history of the discussion of the North Atlantic treaty which has taken place in this house since the treaty was first presented to this parliament. Despite some of the comments that have been made by certain government supporters during the course of this debate, we feel that the offering of this amendment actually strengthens the support that this country can give to NATO, and is indeed very timely.
As a matter of fact, that point was emphasized in an editorial which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Saturday, March 29, and which read in part as follows:
While strenuous efforts are being made to erect the free world's military defences, attempts to strengthen the economies of European countries, as well as of backward areas, do not appear to be

Supply-External Affairs making comparable headway. The lack of confidence motion introduced into the House of Commons by the C.C.F.. on grounds that the government has failed to implement article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, is therefore timely.
There are other sentences in that Citizen editorial to which I shall refer later in my remarks, but at the moment I introduce that comment as to the timeliness of the amendment which is before the house.
I suggest that those who have objected to foreign policy being the subject of a want of confidence motion are reflecting on the essence and the genius of democracy. Surely it is essential to our democratic way that there should be free discussion of all issues that are important. Nothing is more important to us in this country or anywhere in the world today than the international situation, and it would be a strange situation if every one of us in this house had exactly the same ideas as to all aspects of foreign policy. We differ, and express those differences, on a great many matters that are of much less importance. I suggest, therefore, that if there are differences of opinion about certain aspects of our foreign policy, it is our duty to express those differences on the floor of this house.
I feel that the issue which is presented in this amendment is very clear. Likewise I believe it is the most important issue there is in connection with our country's support of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The wording of this amendment, both by what it says and what it omits saying, makes it very clear as to the point at which we are really critical of the present government. The amendment makes it clear, as did the statement issued by the C.C.F. national council a month ago, and as did the first speech on this question in this house by my leader on March 6 and other speeches that have been made since, that the C.C.F. supports in full the principle of NATO. There is no question about that, and the amendment makes it clear.
In the second place, I would point out that there is no question as to our support of the contention that NATO involves military defences which involve commitments in terms of manpower and in terms of huge expenditures. There is nothing in this amendment touching that aspect of the matter, which I suggest is significant. It makes it clear that we are not critical of the underlying assumption in NATO, namely, that there must be military preparation and military defences.
In the third place, this amendment, by virtue of the fact it sticks to one point, makes it clear that we are not unduly critical of the government on the score of mutual aid-


and by "mutual aid" we mean what is referred to in article 3 of the North Atlantic treaty, namely assistance amongst the NATO powers with respect to the supplying of military equipment.
The other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), when my deskmate was speaking, made an interjection with reference to the mutual aid that is being provided for in the estimates that are now before the house. That has to do with the supplying of arms to our partners in NATO, and we welcome the fact that this government is playing some part in the implementation of article 3 of the treaty.
So far so good. In other words, on those three points, this amendment offers no criticism, support of NATO in principle, support of the necessity of military defences and support of what is being done in terms of mutual aid, or in other words the implementation of article 3 of the treaty. What we are critical of, and strongly critical, is clearly set out in the amendment which is before the house. We are critical of the government in that it has fallen down with respect to article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, and in that it has failed to give a lead in seeking the implementation of that article, calling as it does for economic aid.
Let it be clear that there is a distinction between mutual aid as provided for in article 3 of the treaty and economic aid as provided for in article 2. Mutual aid, as I said a moment ago, involves the provision of arms and military equipment. Economic aid involves contributions of money, food and raw materials in order to enable other members of NATO to develop and strengthen their basic economy and to better the health, security and well-being of their people.
I want to bring to my support evidence of my stand when I say that the government has fallen down with respect to seeking to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. That is the whole point of this party's criticism; and I believe it is valuable and constructive criticism that we are offering at this stage in this debate on external affairs. A few moments ago I quoted from part of the editorial that appeared in Saturday's Ottawa Citizen. I now quote another sentence or two from that same editorial:
Article 2 calls for economic collaboration, and although Canada had a large part in introducing this into the treaty, Canada has not led the way in its implementation.
Another item of evidence that I would introduce is something I referred to a moment ago. When my deskmate, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), was speaking the other

day, at the time he introduced this amendment, the Secretary of State for External Affairs interjected that he felt that my colleague was going a little too far in his statement that we were not providing any economic aid. What was the interjection made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs? He asked what my colleague thought of the $300 million in this year's estimates for mutual aid. That is exactly the point, Mr. Speaker. When we press the government as to what they are doing in terms of economic aid they say:	Look at what we are
doing in terms of mutual aid. We do not deny that this government is doing something with respect to mutual aid; but the inability of the minister to refer to anything other than mutual aid indicates our point, namely, that article 2 which calls for non-military economic aid is not being implemented by this government.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, when the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Lesage) got into this debate with respect to the whole question of the economic aspects of our foreign policy, he dealt only with what is being done under the Colombo plan and under the technical assistance program. In both of those cases he was forced to point out that Canada has not yet spent the full amount of the sums of money that were appropriated for even that kind of economic aid. He of course said nothing at all about economic aid under the provisions of the North Atlantic treaty, for the reason that there is none. In other words, Mr. Speaker, there really is no argument as to the fact of the situation. We are pulling our weight, some of us may feel, so far as the military aspect is concerned. We are glad that something is being done in terms of mutual aid with respect to arms. But the plain fact of the matter is that nothing is being done by this government with respect to economic aid, to assist the economies-the standard of living, the productive capacity-of the countries that are associated with us in this North Atlantic coalition, let alone backward countries in other parts of the world, apart from the bit of help that is being given under the Colombo plan and under the United Nations technical assistance program.
One other bit of evidence that I should like to give in support of the proposition that we are doing nothing in terms of economic aid again involves quoting from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has long since learned that we are fond of quoting him against himself, and I do so again. When he was speaking in this debate -indeed it was the speech that opened this present debate on external affairs-on Friday, March 21, 1952, as reported at page 666 of 55704-64J
Supply-External Affairs Hansard, he said something that I should like to quote. At that point he was dealing with another phase of NATO affairs. He was dealing, in fact, with the armament and financial goals set at Lisbon, and he was trying to deal with a point that had been raised by my leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). This is what the minister said:
At the same time we should not, I think, exaggerate the importance of what, after all, are only decisions which are yet to be converted into action. The prestige of NATO must not be based upon illusions. One easy and tempting illusion these days is that a resolution at an international conference is always the same as the result. A resolution is a decision to act; but it is action which produces results.
In other words, when he was looking at the military side of the picture the Secretary of State for External Affairs said: Do not pay any attention to that NATO release; do not pay any attention to the figures that have been bandied about in the press. Look at the results. That is what counts. But when, in that same speech, he got over to the question of economic aid, what did he do? He gave us the very same sort of thing which he had said, in respect of military preparations, was without value. He gave us the report of resolutions; he gave us words, and the clear admission that literally nothing was being done. As reported at page 672 of Hansard for March 21, the minister will recall that he was interrupted first by my deskmate, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), and later by myself. Back at page 671, as he is there reported, the minister had been assuring us that the economic aspects of NATO had not been overlooked, and he gave us a few broad statements as to what was being thought about. He gave us these words, these resolutions which, he told the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, in respect of military preparations, were not to be exaggerated. As a result of the nebulous nature of these statements, my colleague naturally felt disposed to ask the obvious question, and this was it:


Mr. Wright:: Can the minister say, in concrete
terms, what has been done to date?
Here was the answer:


Mr. Pearson:: I cannot give any information in
concrete terms as to what has been done in the field to which I have just referred. Indeed, very little has been done in the field of non-military co-operation.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, that is the whole sum and substance of article 2 of the treaty which this government, prodded by us, played a part in getting written into the treaty. The minister now admits that very little is being done about it.
A little further down on the same page we And it was pointed out to the minister that surely whatever is being talked about in this

Supply-External Affairs field should not be regarded as a military secret; yet the minister asserted that because no final decisions had been taken, anything contained in the report laid before the NATO council on other than military decisions could not be disclosed at this time. So what we have is a few words, some high-sounding resolutions, and anything that is involved in those high-sounding resolutions is locked away in secrecy.
Further down on the same page, page 672 of Hansard, it will be found I asked the minister this question:


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can he say whether there was any discussion of any budgetary arrangements for carrying out any of these economic proposals?
This is the reply:


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was a discussion of budgetary arrangements for NATO generally and there was an estimate made by the experts who worked with us on this committee as to how much these proposals would cost. They will cost a considerable amount. They include such items as exchanges of students and that kind of thing. But I am not in a position to give exact figures in that regard at the present time. They will not cost much in relation. I might add, to our total defence program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are saying that before we do.
All these quotations that I have given, Mr. Speaker, make it crystal clear that the minister himself, as well as others, newspaper editors, commentators, and students of foreign affairs generally, recognize that Canada is doing nothing in terms of economic aid under the provisions of NATO, and it would appear similarly that Canada has done little if anything to try to persuade NATO itself to move in the direction of implementing article 2 of the treaty. In fact, I believe Canada has actually turned down a specific request from NATO for economic aid.
We feel, as I said a moment ago, that in offering these criticisms we are playing a constructive part with respect to Canadian foreign policy at this stage of affairs; indeed we believe it is a constructive part in the affairs of the world itself; for we are convinced, as are a great many others, that the peace of the world, the possibility of our North Atlantic coalition holding together, indeed, the possibility of the whole world holding together, depends upon the extent to which we can move in the direction of economic aid on a mutual basis so that the economies and the well-being of our various countries might be strengthened.
That has to be done, as I see it, with two objectives in view. On the one hand, it has to be done because not until we establish, or help to establish, healthy economies, healthy

societies in all the nations of the world, particularly the backward ones-not until we do that are we going to stem the tide of communist advance.
After all, communism makes its headway not so much by force of arms as it does by the spread of ideas, and those ideas spread far too easily in areas where there is poverty, disease or economic ill-health. The minister knows just as well as we do-and he has said it often, said it in better words than I can command-that we have to work on that aspect of the problem if we are going to stem communist advances.
But not only is it necessary to provide economic aid to help other countries to keep on their feet for that reason; it is also necessary as a phase of our military preparations. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that is well set out in a number of quotations that I have before me, some of which I should like to refer to. A few days ago my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), referred to the Christian Science Monitor of Monday, March 24, 1952, the main article of which is headed: "Gruenther says economic aid is as vital as arms." The story is one from Washington quoting General Alfred M. Gruenther speaking before the senate foreign relations committee on behalf of his chief, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, and saying on behalf of General Eisenhower what is set out under the heading, namely, that economic aid is as vital as arms.
A few days later, on March 26, 1952, the Christian Science Monitor dealt with this question again in a special article entitled "The American scene", written by Roscoe Drummond, chief of the Washington news bureau of the Christian Science Monitor. I find this a very interesting and objective account of the position taken by General Gruenther before the senate foreign relations committee. He says, if I may take the opportunity of paraphrasing it in part, that General Gruenther was particularly strong in his plea both for mutual aid and for economic aid, and at one point-I read this because, as I say, it answers some of the arguments put up by the other side-Roscoe Drummond says this:
It needs to be remembered that Europe is just getting back on its feet economically after the havoc of the war. Continued economic aid. as in the Marshall plan, would be unjustified if it were not for the speed and scope of the defence build-up since Korea.
From my point of view, if I may interject here, I am not sure that the continued economic aid by the Marshall plan would not be a good idea, even if defence preparations had not been speeded up. I am one of those who feel that the way to guarantee the future

peace of the world is to think of the world as one world and try to improve the economies and the standards of living of all peoples the world round. There are others who take a different view, but even those who take the other view should pay attention to what is said in the article I am now quoting from the Christian Science Monitor. This particular paragraph goes on to say:
But increased expenditures for defence means that Europe must spend more dollars to obtain the needed raw materials and machinery for production, food for factory workers, plus fuels, coal, and oil. It also means that because defence spending diverts manpower, materials, and industrial capacity away from production for export, Europe is able to earn fewer dollars. This is why western Europe needs some economic aid for defence support.
That, I may say again, is Roscoe Drummond's summary of the testimony of General Gruenther before the senate foreign relations committee when he appeared there on behalf of his chief, General Eisenhower. In other words, Mr. Speaker, even those whose main interest is in the defence aspect rather than in building up economies, for the sake of the standard of living of the people, even those whose main interest is in military preparations, admit it is necessary to have economic aid so that the economies of these countries would be well based and able to produce sufficient military defences.
The Ottawa Citizen said the same thing in its editorial to which I have already referred. I quote again from that editorial:
Yet if the military superstructure is to be built on a solid social and economic foundation, in which the peoples of the free world can find confidence in their existing institutions and hope for the future, this fact must be faced. Otherwise, for lack of sufficient sacrifices made now by the wealthier nations,-
That includes the United States and Canada.
-the first strong wind from Siberia is as likely as not to blow the military superstructure down, just as the large French armies were scattered in 1940 before their lesser German opponents.
Another quotation which I should like to draw to the attention of the house appeared in the New York Times of Tuesday, December 4, 1951. It was a special dispatch to the New York Times from Washington, dated December 3, reporting an address of Mr. Richard M. Bissell, Junior, deputy director of the mutual security agency. This dispatch puts within quotation marks these words, spoken by Mr. Bissell:
It has become a major heresy in Washington to suggest that continued economic progress was intended as part of the rearmament program.
Hon. members will please note this:
Actually nothing is more necessary than economic and social health of the participating countries if
Supply-External Affairs the rearmament program is to be achieved. A well-knit social fabric is necessary to the support of any military effort.
That is the end of the paragraph within quotation marks, but further on in the same article I read:
European rearmament will fail, no matter how much money the United States put into the effort, unless drastic changes are made in the structure, as well as the productivity, of the western European economy. Mr. Bissell told his luncheon audience.
And so, Mr. Speaker, you have it on every hand. The Secretary of State for External Affairs agrees with us-in fact, it is his own idea-that to stem the tide of communism we have got to improve the economies of those other countries, we have got to improve the standard of living, the well-being of these people. If we are going to do that we may have to make some sacrifices in terms of economic aid.
Those who think particularly and technically about the military side feel likewise that economic aid to the economies of those countries is necessary, and yet, despite all that, article 2 still remains an article in the treaty which Canada helped to get there, but about which thus far she seems to have done very little, if anything at all. I quote also a sentence or two from the Economist under date of March 1, 1952. As a matter of fact the article was entitled "Security second". I would ask hon. members to note this:
A bankrupt Britain, a Britain unable to buy raw materials or to preserve sterling as an international currency, cannot be safe or contribute to the safety of others. When the need is so pressing, economic solvency must rank before military security.
I find that something of that view was expressed the other day by the hon, member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker). If I do him an injustice in putting it that way, then he is here to correct me. The hon. member, speaking before the Empire club at the Royal York hotel in Toronto last Thursday, dealt with the bulwark Great Britain is in the free world, and urged substantial contributions by Canada to Great Britain. The heading in the Globe and Mail for Friday, March 28, reads "Diefenbaker urges $200 million in cash and food for Britain." This is a report of the speech he made last Thursday in Toronto. There we have another authority-and I hope he will not mind my using the term in reference to him-suggesting that economic aid is vital at this juncture in world history.
The hon. member for Lake Centre put it down, in concrete terms, that not only is economic aid necessary, but Canada should do something about it, that Canada had had

Supply-External Affairs something to do with getting article 2 into the treaty, and should come along with $100 million or $200 million by way of aid to Britain, partly in cash and partly in food.
I should like to point out that on the same day the hon. member was making that speech in Toronto, the same idea was being put forth in the House of Commons by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart), speaking in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). He suggested precisely the same figure of $100 million or $200 million by way of economic aid to NATO countries. Let me be fair and say that there is a slight difference. The hon. member for Lake Centre was asking that the whole of the contribution go to Great Britain or perhaps the commonwealth countries, while the hon. member for Winnipeg North was proposing that that should be the possible measure of our economic aid to NATO countries. At any rate they were both suggesting the same thing, and I think both of them were using sound judgment; both were making a suggestion that could play an important part in furthering the peace of mankind.
The same day the hon. member for Lake Centre was making that suggestion in Toronto, his leader in the House of Commons, speaking shortly after the hon, member for Winnipeg North, had used precisely the same figures as those used in Toronto by the hon. member for Lake Centre-as I say, speaking shortly after my colleague from Winnipeg North, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) said that he would vote against the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort, even though it asked for the very same thing, namely, economic aid to NATO countries.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: But it is only fair to say that he gave reasons: he did not want this country to appear divided.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am about to deal with that. The hon. member says that his leader gave reasons for taking the opposite view.


John George Diefenbaker: Not the opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The main reason he gave was that he felt he had to look behind the words of the amendment to what he might regard as its source, and had to consider the source from which it came, both the person who had moved it and the party to which he belonged. He said that the words of the amendment, themselves, were capable of being construed as satisfactory, but-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to what has been said, and, since I do not wish to permit the record to give an interpretation which is not the correct one, I wish

it made quite clear that the interpretation now being placed upon my words is not the correct one. Hansard will show that what I had actually put forward was the proposition that we did not wish any uncertainty as to the stand in this house in regard to Canada's foreign policy. This is what I said, as reported at page 872 of Hansard:
I wish to make it abundantly clear that I regret, as I am sure all members of the Conservative party in the house regret, that there should be an amendment before us at this time which could be interpreted outside of Canada as a suggestion that the House of Commons is not wholly united behind a policy of collective action to prevent war and to maintain peace by the strength of the nations of the Atlantic community, combined in the most effective way that can be done.
I have taken occasion to read this quotation, because I would not wish the statements now made to remain without any further remarks in the context, so that there might be a possibility of incorrectly interpreting them. I do not suggest that this is a deliberate misinterpretation. On the contrary I know the hon. member is referring to a speech that was made some days ago. But I wish to place on the record what I actually did say, and also to add that the words the hon. member has just used implied that what I had said was in some way directed to what had been said by the hon. member for Lake Centre, when, in fact, that is most certainly not so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the latter comments of the leader of the opposition, I would point out that both speeches were made on the same day in different places, and it is unlikely that either of the hon. members knew what the other was saying on that day. But with regard to what the leader of the opposition did say on March 27, I would point out that as reported at page 871 of Hansard he said:
I wish now to refer to the amendment before us. That amendment, standing by itself, might perhaps appeal to many hon. members. It expresses regret that the government of Canada has not done more under article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
And then he went on to say:
So that we may not be in any doubt as to what it is we are discussing at this stage, and the subject matter upon which we shall be called upon to vote, when the amendment is placed before the house for a vote, may I simply repeat the words of this amendment introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
And then I interjected to point out that it had been moved by the hon. member for Melfort, and seconded by myself. I submit that what the leader of the opposition has said just now does not alter what I was about to say, that he admitted that the words of the amendment might appeal to many hon. members. In other words he admitted

that there was something to the amendment, standing by itself. But because of the person who had moved it, and because of the intent that he saw in it, and because it came from this political party, and because he thought, wrongly, that it implied non-support of NATO, he proposed to vote against it.


George Alexander Drew: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, who has made such a valuable contribution to debates in the house, but I challenge him to indicate anywhere in what I said any suggestion that my stand was taken because the remarks had emanated from his party.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I can do it; but it may take a minute.


An hon. Member:: Carried.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, don't challenge me
without expecting an answer. I am now quoting again from what was said by the leader of the opposition:
It is not possible, in examining the amendment, to divorce from our minds the statements made by the party offering the amendment to the effect that the announcements issued from Lisbon indicated preparations on too great a scale and that, in effect, our preparations for defence should be restricted, and greater attention should be paid to providing economic assistance to the nations of Europe.
There it is. He said that whatever the words of the amendment might be, he could not divorce those words from the statements made by the party from which they came.


George Alexander Drew: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am going to enter my last objection-and it is my last- by pointing out that there is a vast difference between stating that I could not divorce the statements made by hon. members of his party in connection with this very debate, and objecting to the amendment simply because it emanated from the party to which he belongs. Might I remind the hon. member that he had the unique distinction of having this party and other parties in the house support him in another motion within a day or so of this very statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: True, but generally speaking it seems that if my colleague the hon. member for Melfort had moved the ten commandments they would not get the support of the leader of the opposition, just because my colleague had moved them.


Mr. Harkness:: A large number of people do not support them, generally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That reminds me of a story I once heard of a woman who said that they just put ideas into her head. However, I was referring to various quotations and authorities for my contention that nothing
Supply-External Affairs is more important at this time than the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty and economic aid generally, not only to NATO nations but to backward countries in other parts of the world. I think hon. members would do well to read a few excerpts from "Mr. President", an article which appears in this month's Reader's Digest and which contains some intimate ideas of President Truman. For example, on pages 239 and 240 I find the following quotation direct from Mr. Truman:
I consider point four a practical answer to a growing crisis in a world torn between aggression and peace. We have bought time at great expense and a terrible cost of lives and fortune, and now we must use that time intelligently and courageously. We face serious trouble unless we realize that our own welfare and that of the rest of the world depend upon the constant and dynamic expansion of the world's resources. Fear that the world is growing too small is groundless. There is room, shelter and food for millions more if we put our know-how to work.
President Truman went on to deal with the situation in certain specific areas of the world and pointed out in precise terms what could be done in the way of assistance from North America to help develop the economies and productivity of other parts of the world in such a way as to guarantee the future peace and happiness of mankind.
Because of the extreme importance, as I have tried to lay it before the house, of economic aid, I suggest that the terms of our amendment cannot be evaded by calling it a want of confidence motion, saying that it is not a good idea to introduce such a motion with respect to foreign policy, or squirming around it in any way. The plain fact of the matter is that in presenting this motion at this time we do so because we believe it will strengthen the hands of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, both in the government of this country and in the councils of NATO. I have no doubt that he needs strength for his ideas in both of those places.
While I am on my feet I want to say a few words with respect to a couple of other propositions that I should like to lay before the house at this time. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs was speaking a few days ago he sought to answer my demands of an earlier date for more precise information with respect to the military and financial aspects of the NATO goals and he suggested that Canada was being told her part both in terms of manpower and in terms of dollars, but that we could not expect to have the details for all other countries or indeed the total picture.
I submit that if each of the countries in NATO is allowed to have information with respect to itself, surely we are not children and it should be possible for us to be given

Supply-External Affairs the totals. I urge that that should be done. I press that point for two reasons which I shall try to state quickly. The first is that we need that information in order to be able to decide whether our contribution is as large as it should be, is too large or not large enough. I suggest also that the people of free countries give their best support when they really know what is going on.
The other comment I make, and this is my last, is that I feel that at this juncture of world affairs NATO owes it to itself and to the world to make a clear statement as to our aims in that organization. I consider this somewhat parallel to the situation that existed during world war II when our war aims needed to be stated. I say now that our defence aims need to be stated. I feel that we should make it clear that we are not trying to set in motion a rearmament race that will go on forever, but rather that we are trying-I am speaking now of the military side of the program-to achieve goals of strength which are not ends in themselves but from which we propose to negotiate for the peace of the world.
The phrase "negotiate from strength" is bandied about a great deal. But when and where is the point at which we will be satisfied that we have the strength and that it is time to negotiate? My fear is that this military program can become a snowball which will grow until we have just another rearmament race such as has bedevilled the world all through modern history. Our aim should not be to have a permanent cold war with the danger that it will become a hot war. As I have said already, our aim should be to establish strength from which we can negotiate. But strength is not the end; surely it is a means. It is peace we really want.
On March 18 I said that in my view the greatest burden in the history of the world had been laid upon the NATO countries. We cannot get away from the fact that we are called upon to build up our military preparations and defences. However, every time in history that that has happened it has become a rearmament race which has broken out in war. This time we say that we do not want it to be that. We assert that we do not intend it to go that way this time. If we are going to give meaning to that intention I say we have to make a clear statement of our defence aims as well as the other aims to which I have referred.
I believe that we can prevent the holocaust of a third world war and NATO can play a part in that effort if we do at least the things I have been suggesting this afternoon. I shall repeat them in reverse. First, that we should examine our defence aims and state them

clearly. Second, that so far as the military side of the program is concerned we should have all the information out in the open. Finally, we should concentrate to a much greater extent than has been the case thus far on economic aid which is so important to the peace and well-being of mankind.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, with at least one of the observations made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, I agree, and that is when he said that I needed strength. I am going to need that strength, and possibly the house will need some strength also because I will take up a good deal of the time of the house this afternoon in trying to deal with as many of the questions that have been raised during the course of this debate as I have time for and also to deal if I may with the motion which is before the house and which has been explained once more by the hon. member who has just taken his seat.
In dealing with some of the questions that have been raised during the course of this debate and about which information has been requested from the government and about which observations have been made concerning government policy, I should like to begin with Far Eastern affairs. This has taken up a good deal of the time of the discussion. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) complained the other day during his interesting contribution to the debate about the light-hearted way in which I dealt with these questions and that all I had done, to use his words, was to challenge the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) to a schoolboy debate concerning them.


Mr. Green:: That was on Formosa.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On Formosa. The hon. member for Peel complained that I was trying to lead him into an academic discussion on this matter. There could hardly be anything less academic in the world than the situation in the Far East, particularly in Korea and Formosa. Indeed there is so little of the academic about this subject that when the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) began to talk about Far Eastern matters he admitted it was risky to discuss them; and so it is. It is also delicate, and not easy.
A good many references have been made to Formosa. In that connection I asked-and I did not do so in any provocative sense but in the same way that that information had been asked of me-as to the policy of the opposition parties in respect of Formosa and Far Eastern questions. I said I was not sure in my own mind, for instance, what was the

policy of the Progressive Conservative party in respect of that island. They had stated through their spokesmen that they would not permit Formosa to fall into communist hands, and when I heard that statement-which was made more than once-I wondered what was meant by it. Did that mean we should use force to prevent Formosa falling into communist hands? Is it suggested that the United Nations should use force for this purpose, which of course is manifestly impossible? Or is it suggested that Canada and the United States might use force for this purpose? I did not go as far as that. It was suggested that my fault in talking about this matter was that I left the question of Formosa open; and I submit that that is exactly what should be done with it at this time.
At the moment we in the United Nations are pledged at least to try to make peace with communist China over Korea; and negotiations for the first stage of making peace, the armistice stage, are now under way. That is what we are trying to do. Then if we are successful in the first stage we are pledged to discuss other Far Eastern questions. We have taken that pledge in the United Nations. Should we now say that we will never allow Formosa to go back to Peking, if they do not throw out their present government in China? Should we say that, especially when we have subscribed to international agreements recognizing Formosa as part of China, and when we recognize that now sovereignty legally resides in China? I suggest that that would be rigid, dead-end diplomacy, and not very wise diplomacy to follow at this time in this matter. Suppose we had followed the same tactics three or four years ago in respect of Yugoslavia. We would look a little ridiculous now. In discussing this matter the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) said, at page 675 of Hansard for March 21:
... as I see it today, neither this nor any other government can do more than simply to formulate its Far Eastern policy with respect to Formosa and to red China, on a day-to-day basis.
Personally I think that may be going a little too far in the pursuit of freedom of action; but if it means anything at all-and I suggest it does mean something-it is certainly not what the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) advocates. It must surely mean that it would be unwise now to say we will not permit Formosa ever to be returned to China if a communist government is in power at Peking.


Gordon Graydon: It is not what you said, either.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It also means it would be unwise to say now that we will hand it
Supply-External Affairs over to such a government in Peking, or that we would force the people of Formosa to join China under that government. No one on this side of the house has ever suggested that, nor can any reasonable inference be drawn from any statement I have made which would indicate that to be the policy of the government. Ultimately, of course, Formosa must be a question of international discussion and decision, preferably through the United Nations as the Secretary of State for the United States has already intimated.
In such a discussion, which I suppose must come ultimately, there are certain factors which should be taken into consideration by those responsible. The first-and possibly the most important factor of all, though it is very often overlooked-in our discussion of this matter is that the views of the Formosan people themselves should be taken into consideration. They are a people who have not known national freedom, who are in many ways quite separate from the Japanese and Chinese who have ruled over them. Second, consideration must be given to international engagements already undertaken including, I may add, the United Nations charter. Third, consideration should be given to the character and policies of the government or governments of China which may be in power at that time. Fourth, of course, we cannot overlook the fact I have just mentioned, that legally Formosa is part of China. Both Chinese governments insist on that. It is about the only matter on which they are united. The dispute is over which government shall control Formosa.
The leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) seemed even more suspicious than the hon. member for Peel about government policy in regard to Formosa. He got quite rhetorical over the necessity for open diplomacy in this matter. As he said, there must be no secret agreements with regard to Formosa or any other country in the world; there must be no sordid trades dealing with human lives. And he felt that to hand over Formosa to the Peking government of China would be the same brand of appeasement that was represented by what he called the terrible decision at Munich.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to this suggestion I need only say that there is no deal about which we know anything, secret or otherwise, in regard to Formosa; and the bogey of secret diplomacy in this matter is strictly fictitious. The United Nations must decide, and there is not much secret diplomacy these days about the United Nations. Possibly we might make more progress if we had a little more confidential discussion there. Open covenants, yes; but occasionally open covenants confidentially negotiated, after the

Supply-External Affairs principles and purposes of the negotiations have been made known to our own people. I am not sure that would not be more effective and far better for peace and good understanding than the headline and housetop diplomacy on which the Russian communists, who are now the staunchest believers in open diplomacy, insist.
The leader of the opposition also finds something suspicious and secret in alleged arrangements regarding retaliatory action in Korea. In this connection the other evening he enunciated a really strange diplomatic doctrine. I would like to quote from what he said on this point, at page 869 of Hansard for March 27:
The members of this house will recall the assurance which was given that the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom were dealing with these problems on the basis of complete confidence and complete understanding.
The problem was what should happen in Korea if there should be renewed aggression there or a renewed offensive in the present aggression. Then he went on:
There was, in fact, more than the suggestion that it was extremely fortunate that the government of the United Kingdom, with our knowledge, had restrained the United States from commitments which might have carried hostilities beyond the mainland of Korea. That being so, there is an explanation due to this house. Was the Canadian government aware of the arrangement between Mr. Attlee and Mr. Morrison on the one hand, and the government of the United States on the other, and of the possible extension of hostilities to the bases on the China coast in the event of pressure which would justify that action under the arrangement which was arrived at?
Further he said:
Either the Canadian government knew of that arrangement or it did not, If it knew of that arrangement, then we in the house should have known of that arrangement in complete detail. If it did not know of that arrangement, then there was not, between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Canada, that measure of confidence which we had a right to expect. Whichever it was, the disclosure of that fact should persuade every member of this house that if there is one thing above all others which we will insist upon, as members of the Canadian House of Commons, it is that we know every essential fact upon which the future action of this country might be based.
That is the statement made by the hon. member the other night. In other words, what he was saying in the words I have just quoted was that if one government has told us in confidence of an arrangement which it was discussing with another government, we should at once inform this House of Commons about the arrangement in complete detail. That would be a most unusual and unfortunate way in which to conduct diplomacy. It would be a very quick way to alienate your friends and lose your influence with other governments. How could we expect to have friendly governments deal with us


in, and I quote the hon. member's words again, complete confidence and complete understanding, if we told this parliament or the people of Canada at once all that these other governments had told us in confidence?
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we knew of these discussions between Washington and London. The fact is also that if they were to be made public that should be done by the governments concerned and not by us. A further fact is that our own policy on this matter-and that is where our responsibility to this parliament lies, not in what is discussed between London and Washington- has already been made clear to this house on more than one occasion. There are no under-the-table deals going on. I do not think I need to delay the house by reading what I said on this very matter in this house both on April 26 and May 7, 1951. Part of the latter speech I repeated in the house last October in respect of our policy in Korea if there were developments there which might, because of Chinese actions, necessitate an extension of the war. I think our policy in that regard has been made quite clear. I do not think there is any room for any misunderstanding as to what it would be.
When the United Kingdom-United States talks were going on in Washington last September, we did at that time restate our views in a message to the state department and to London, so that there would be no misunderstanding there as to where we stood, to the effect that any military action by the unified command which would take effect outside of Korea, should only be taken after consultation between those countries having forces in Korea, unless the safety of the troops made immediate retaliatory action essential and time or circumstances did not permit such consultation.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: September, 1951. It has also been recognized by us, and by others, that if the armistice talks now going on should break down, and if this should be followed by mass attacks or new aggressions or if the armistice should be signed and afterwards a second aggression committed-I have said this before, too-a new and dangerous situation might arise. Chinese action might make it difficult to restrict the conflict to Korea, no matter how hard we might try to do that. The countries more immediately concerned, because of the fact that they have forces in Korea, have already been discussing amongst themselves what kind of declaration might be made in those circumstances, and what action if any should be considered. But in those discussions I can assure the house that no new commitments have been incurred by Canada.

Along with others we have emphasized the desirability of using United Nations procedures for any formal consultations required or any decisions which may have to be taken.
We have also been discussing with other friendly governments what would be the best procedure for attempting to negotiate a political settlement, once an armistice has been satisfactorily concluded in Korea. Here again in these discussions we have emphasized the importance of the role of the United Nations.
I come now to a question which was raised by the member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and also by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch), in regard to our ultimate aims in Korea. The hon. member for Peace River wondered if we had backed down from our original purpose, namely, to establish a free, unified, independent and democratic government in Korea. I would reply to that in the following way: As soon as it became seized of the problem in Korea, as far back indeed as 1947, the general assembly of the United Nations has had as its policy the creation of a unified, democratic and independent Korea. It should be emphasized that that is the political purpose to be achieved by peaceful means in accordance with the letter and spirit of the charter of the United Nations. We were trying to do that when the Korean war broke out in June, 1950, thereby adding a new element to the situation. North Korea committed an act of aggression against the Republic of Korea and the United Nations decided, quite properly, that that aggression had to be repelled. A series of resolutions were passed to give effect to that decision. The United Nations now, therefore, is really dealing with two questions-the basic or long term question of the unification and independence of Korea, and the short term question of repelling the aggression committed against the Republic of Korea.
In September and October, 1950, there seemed to be a possibility that the two purposes could be dealt with at once. It seemed likely then that a by-product of the military action taken to repel aggression might be the unification of Korea. If such a possibility existed, the majority of the United Nations wished to take advantage of it, and took action to that end. But as it turned out, that possibility could not be realized at that time because the central people's government of China intervened and the United Nations forces were driven back from North Korea. The United Nations, however, has not abandoned any purpose in Korea. We still hope to repel aggression and prove that it does not profit the aggressor. It is for that purpose we are using force. But while we should be happy to see unification of Korea
Supply-External Affairs result from this use of force for the repulsion of aggression, the United Nations has not been pledged to use force for the sole purpose of bringing about unification. No doubt the unification of Korea will be one of the topics discussed in the political conference which, under the terms of the present draft agreement for an armistice, is to be held within three months after the conclusion of hostilities, if we ever reach that point.
Another Far Eastern subject that arose in the course of the discussions, and indeed was dealt with by several speakers, was this hardy perennial, the Pacific pact. The leader of the opposition inferred from something I said in New York, and repeated in this house, that I have declared in favour of a Pacific pact. I tried to explain that that was not the situation, Mr. Speaker, when I took part in this discussion some days ago, but apparently he was not impressed by my denial or by my explanation. My statement at that time with regard to collective action being necessary in the Pacific does not mean a Pacific pact any more than the statement of Mr. Eden meant a Pacific pact when he said, and I quote from a speech he made in New York:
. . . intervention by force by Chinese communists in southeast Asia . . . would create a situation no less menacing than that which the United Nations met and faced in Korea. In any such event the United Nations should be equally solid to resist it.
But the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) still insists that we should take the lead here and that pending a broader arrangement we should at least join the trilateral security treaty embracing the United States, Australia and New Zealand. All I can say is that our attitude in this matter is the same as that which I tried to explain to the house last autumn. Our position with regard to a Pacific pact is the same. Within the last few months we have discussed with the governments most concerned whether it is now desirable or possible to broaden this more limited security arrangement into a Pacific pact; and the objections to that broadening remain strong. Those objections are, I think I can say, accepted now as overriding by practically all the countries concerned with Pacific security.


Gordon Graydon: Will you not have to come to it eventually?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There is the question of membership at the present time, and I have mentioned that before. There is the question of community of interest. There is the question of the position of metropolitan powers such as France, the United Kingdom and The Netherlands, and their territories in the Pacific. I therefore suggest that while the

Supply-External Affairs advantages of a general Pacific pact are prospective, the difficulties are immediate. Indeed Mr. John Foster Dulles pointed out those difficulties on Friday to the senate committee in Washington. Nevertheless, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), as reported at page 676 of Hansard, said:
We must not take the chance of having another Korea. This party has previously called for the consideration of a Pacific pact. It believes that as time moves on the argument in its favour becomes more convincing than ever. The implementation of such a policy would give a measure of stability in the Far East and would enable us to proceed with our plans for the rehabilitation of those areas in the Asiatic free world which are so essential to peace itself.
Our point of view is that the effort to bring that about at this time would produce not stability but instability. Although the time may come when it will be just as desirable to have that kind of pact in the Pacific as it is now desirable to have it in the Atlantic, that time has not yet arrived. As I have said previously-and I should like to repeat it-we are, of course, just as interested in security in the Pacific as we are in security in the Atlantic; and I think our actions indicate that.
There remains the question of the amendment which is before the house, and about which I feel that I should say something on behalf of the government. I must say that I was surprised when this amendment was introduced. It reads as follows:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out. and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty."
I was surprised because it was not many months ago-indeed, it was on October 23, 1951-when this house passed, without a dissenting vote, a motion, part of which reads as follows, and I am leaving out the part of it which does not refer to the North Atlantic treaty:
"this house approves of the continuance of Canada's participation in the efforts being made . . . by the North Atlantic treaty nations to deter aggression and promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.
The members of the party who have moved the present resolution found no difficulty in accepting that resolution last October. What has happened between last October and now to change their minds? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), in his speech a few moments ago, indicated that this kind of resolution would strengthen the hands of those who were supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I beg leave, Mr. Speaker, to take another view of the effect of this resolution, if it were passed

by this house. It states-and the hon. member for Melfort did not attempt to deny this fact when he introduced it-the refusal of that party to accept the present policy of the government with respect to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.


Percy Ellis Wright: In one respect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will just read what the hon. member said in introducing his motion-, as reported at page 769 of Hansard:
However, there is one important subject with which I wish to deal. The impression seems to have been created in the house and in the country that, because we in this group agree that a position of strength must be attained if peace is to be maintained-or, should I say, if war is not to spread farther-we agree with the present government policy with respect to NATO.
That is, he suggests that the impression seems to have been created that they agreed with the present government view with respect to NATO. Then he goes on to say this:
I want to say, and as decidedly as I can, that this is not the case. While we do agree with the overall objective, we certainly disagree with the methods by which this government is presently trying to implement that objective.
Why do they disagree? Not, I think, as one might have expected, because the military goals set at Lisbon, although lower than the previous goals, were too high.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We do not know what they are yet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not because the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has fallen completely under military control or under American influences, but surprisingly because we have not taken effective steps to implement article 2. Article 2 has been read before, but sometimes its meaning is overlooked, in spite of the number of times it has been read. It reads:
The parties will contribute towards the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions-
Are we trying to do that?
-by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded,-
Are we trying to do that?
-and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being.
Are we trying to do that? Then the article goes on as follows:
They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Are we trying to do that? I suggest that we are trying to do all of those things which are mentioned in article 2; and nothing else is mentioned in article 2.

In the course of his speech introducing this motion the hon. member for Melfort, who charged me with making at least one irresponsible statement, himself made a few statements which I thought were somewhat irresponsible. He accepts our military expenditures but he complains that we will not give away our materials free and, surprisingly, that we will not accept goods that can be sold in our markets to pay for these materials. He also says that we demand cash on the barrelhead for the necessary materials which these other countries, these friends of ours in NATO, need in order to carry out an effective NATO program. He states that I had admitted that we had done nothing in the field of economic aid. I have never made any such admission, because it would be an untrue statement if I made it. In short, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid he was tempted to make the usual C.C.F. claim to be the sole custodians of the national conscience in the cause of international economic assistance.
The background of article 2 is well known. It has been called, because of our efforts to get it in the treaty, the Canadian article. We got it included in the treaty, but only after some difficulty. Our purpose in trying to get this article in the North Atlantic treaty was a simple one, and I think one which will commend itself to the house. It was to demonstrate by the very words of our treaty that what we were signing was more than a mere military alliance; but we never at that time expected, nor do we now expect, immediate or sensational results. We were, however, anxious then, and we are anxious now, that European steps towards unity, towards greater collective action in Europe, should be tied in to the Atlantic concept, and that in their development there should be no discrimination against the overseas North Atlantic powers. We were thinking of the developments of the Brussels organization, the development of the O.E.E.C., and the arrangements for developing European agriculture and European commerce, and we were anxious that in the North Atlantic treaty there should be an article which would do what it could to ensure that these developments were on the North Atlantic and not on the European basis. Surely, that is an objective which will commend itself to all hon. members. In March, 1949, in explaining the article to the house I said this, as reported at page 2097 of Hansard, and no exception was taken to my words then:
... all we are trying to do In those words is to take a pledge that we will do our best to remove economic conflict in our international economic policy. It is a pledge, if you like, for co-operation in economic policies to the greatest extent possible and subject, of course, to our complete control over
Supply-External Affairs our own economic policies. It is hoped that by this co-operation we will help create, not only in the North Atlantic community but throughout the world, a progressive and prosperous society in which peace and security can flourish.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that notwithstanding what has been said by the hon. members of the C.C.F. group, we are doing this in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization under article 2, and that we are building up those habits of co-operation and consultation which are referred to in that article. I believe that Canada, far from being condemned for doing nothing under the article, has done as much as or more than any other particular country to achieve its implementation by developing economic and political co-operation, and by building up the Atlantic community; but I would remind hon. members that no one country can achieve implementation of a NATO policy and that what must be done must be done by common agreement. If we look at article 2 I think we will find that, unlike certain other articles in the treaty, it does not provide specifically for any special NATO machinery; nor does it necessarily entail joint programs of action among member nations, although that might of course develop. It is a rule of conduct which member nations undertake to follow in their internal and external policies generally, and not merely in their policies vis-a-vis one another. Existing international institutions, particularly the United Nations, should be used by members to the full for this purpose. It may be that as time goes on we shall find it desirable to establish special NATO machinery and to organize special NATO programs for these broad purposes, but there is certainly no point at the present time in duplicating machinery which is already existing and which is functioning.
Meanwhile, we in NATO agree to seek under this article to eliminate conflict in our international economic policies, not only among ourselves, but as against other nations. We agree to encourage economic collaboration. I do not mean to suggest that this economic co-operation sentence of article 2 is meaningless in the sense that it is merely a guidepost for purely academic matters. It is important for other reasons. It is important as a defence against discriminatory trade practices by one NATO nation against others. It is also an extremely important safeguard should any member of NATO find its economy imperilled by reason of its contribution to the common defence of the North Atlantic community; and in setting up the T.C.C. committee to look into that very matter we were implementing article 2 of the treaty. I would also add that there is already a good deal of economic consultation and collaboration going

Supply-External Affairs on within NATO. Some of it is closely related, as is inevitable, to defence, and some less closely. Through the work, for instance, of NATO's financial and economic board I think we know more about each other's economic positions and problems than we ever knew before, and the whole of the T.C.C. operation was based on the foundation of statistics and knowledge that have been collected by the financial and economic board.
Then also, there is the defence production board which has done useful work in coordinating defence production. The usefulness of that kind of work will, I suggest, outlive- I hope it will outlive-the present emergency.
The article is being implemented in other ways, some of which do not involve the use of NATO machinery at all. As hon. members know, there are many international organizations and agencies in the economic field, and all NATO countries are members of most of them, if not all of them. It would be senseless for NATO to try to duplicate useful work being done elsewhere, and so NATO countries work through these other organizations in their efforts to further economic collaboration and avoid economic conflict.
For example, not long ago in NATO we considered setting up a special migration and manpower body, and the proposal was referred to a special committee for examination and report. But it was found, after such examination, that that was a subject much broader than NATO, that it could best be dealt with on a basis wider than NATO, and that an international organization indeed was already in existence to deal with it. Similarly, we considered setting up special NATO machinery for allocating raw materials. But it became quite clear that broader machinery, such as is now provided by the international materials conference in Washington, would meet the needs in that field much more effectively than anything NATO could do. All these matters were very carefully and very exhaustively reviewed by a special committee, and that committee did report and did recommend some concrete proposals which, I admit, have not yet been carried into action. That committee, when it gave up its mandate at Lisbon, emphasized, as indeed it had emphasized previously, that what we have done under this article is just a beginning.
We are not so concerned in NATO with talking about some grandiose or airy Atlantic NATO structure, or of setting up some rival Colombo or Marshall plan organization, as we are in laying foundations on which to build the future. But the hon. member who moved this motion will expect me to deal with the specific aspect of the charge which

he levelled at us. The charge, which was repeated this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was our alleged failure to provide direct economic aid to our NATO allies, which he seems to think the main or the whole purpose of article 2. It is the only part of article 2 that he talked about. He referred in this connection to the Marshall plan and emphasized that while the United States had been dealing so generously with its allies, we in Canada had provided little or nothing-a comparison against his own country which has already been noted in some United States papers. I think hon. members already know how inaccurate that kind of statement is. I believe, on the contrary, that Canada has done its full and proper share in rebuilding, consolidating and assisting the post-war free world.
The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) asks, "What has Canada done to establish economic stability in Europe to date?"-and then he answers his own question, that she "has made no real sacrifice to obtain greater security by paying some of the premium of insurance."
I would like to read out a list of the total amounts Canada has provided in various forms of economic aid since the war-that is, from the fiscal year 1945-46 up to and including the fiscal year 1951-52. Post-war financial and economic assistance during those years, in the form of credits-and that is economic assistance to Europe-amounts to $1,753 million. In the form of post-war military relief, it amounts to $95 million. By way of contributions to United Nations relief and rehabilitation agencies and assistance programs it amounts to $203 million. In connection with the Colombo plan the figure is $25,300,000; and for NATO, up to the present time, by way of mutual aid and other contributions, the figure is $324,800,000. Then there was an emergency gift of wheat to Greece of $830,000. This makes a total, of all aid given by the people of this country to those who needed it, of $2,403 million.
In the light of this well-known record I am astounded by a great many things said by the hon. member for Melfort and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). However, the only particular point to which I wish to make special reference is the government's position on NATO mutual aid. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) at page 678 of Hansard asked questions on that subject. He wanted to know what we had been asked to contribute to the North Atlantic peace pool, what we had undertaken to contribute, and how we would do it. He implored us to tell all.

I would be very glad indeed to tell all, so far as I know it all; but, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that it be called five o'clock, because I understand that the sitting is to be suspended at this time.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1953.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1952.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Wright.
Lester Bowles Pearson: When the sitting was suspended I had been dealing with the motion before the house and had reached the point where I was about to try to answer some questions which had been addressed to the government as to what actually happened at Lisbon in respect of the request for economic aid. I am very conscious of the fact that I have already exceeded my time limit.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that the minister is limited as to time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is not limited; he is the first minister replying to a motion of nonconfidence.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister is not limited as to time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to discuss this request for economic aid, about which we have heard so much. As has already been reported, the executive bureau of the T.C.C., known as the three wise men, approved of the general shape and size of our military program in their first report. They did, however, suggest for consideration by the Canadian government that
Supply-External Affairs in 1952-53, the current financial year, we should provide mutual aid-not of $500 million as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said over the air last night-but of $250 million over and above our proposed program of approximately $225 million which we had already submitted to them. That would have meant a total of $475 million for Canada for this year's NATO mutual aid. If we add in the contribution under the Colombo plan and other items it would have meant for us total foreign aid of well over $500 million.
Mr. Speaker, the government considered these proposals of the three wise men and decided that in present circumstances the amount was too high; too high in relation to our balance of payments, which is already supported by borrowing abroad at a rate in excess of $600 million a year, and indeed too high in relation to the United States itself. Indeed those figures might have meant that Canada would have been budgeting for foreign aid in larger proportion than other great nations such as the United States, and this despite the far greater per capita wealth and the stronger trading position of the United States, and despite its responsibility as a creditor nation and as the leader of our coalition. The government, however, did decide before Lisbon that it could go beyond our original program for mutual aid as submitted to the wise men. As a result, after a good deal of consideration, we decided to recommend a mutual aid program for 1952-53 of some $325 million, a figure which has already been announced and which, as it happened, is almost exactly the same figure as we have up to the present spent on mutual aid for NATO. Therefore, the total amount for foreign aid in the estimates, including the Colombo plan and other items, amounts to some $360 million for the current fiscal year. Considering all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this compares favourably with what any other country is likely to do.
Having decided on a total of $325 million for our NATO mutual aid, the government then had to consider how that money could best be used. Here again there was a suggestion from the three wise men that, while part of it might be spent on military equipment-they never suggested at any time that all of it should be spent on raw materials and that sort of thing-part also should be spent on raw materials, foodstuffs and so on-but not all of the $500 million as was suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) last evening. This suggestion was also carefully considered by the government, and as a result we put forward an

Supply-External Affairs alternative plan which we considered to be a better one. In our reply to the TCC on January 13, we stated our position substantially as follows:
The TCC had suggested that this increased assistance might take the form partly of economic assistance and partly of military transfers. Economic aid of the type suggested would have meant forgoing payment to us for normal exports which are the basis of Canada's outgoing overseas trade. The proceeds from these exports are required to pay for our expanding import requirements, and to finance currently heavy carrying charges on external liabilities, a large part of which have been incurred in expanding the production of those same exports. We suggested to the TCC, therefore, that to give away these staple exports would cut at the basis of the viability of the Canadian economy. So we informed the TCC that, for this and for other reasons, under the present circumstances, we considered that it would be inadvisable for us to give our economic assistance in this form but that we should give it in the form of defence support. We were particularly concerned lest we should be asked to give aid in the form of raw materials because we realized that, in addition to large external payments, we would be undertaking large purchases of military equipment in the United States and large expenditures for the maintenance of our troops in the form of offshore military purchases, payment for infrastructure and other payments to NATO. We pointed out, therefore, that our mutual aid this year might better take the form of defence aid and not of the raw materials which are the basis of our export trade.
We pointed out also that, unlike the United States, Canada lived by these staple exports, that the North Atlantic treaty was a 20-year obligation, and that something like the TCC operation was clearly going to be an annual affair. As a matter of fact, later on at Lisbon we decided that that kind of examination should be an annual affair. If we started to give away our staple exports, it might very well lead us into very deep water indeed, especially at a time when we were so heavily dependent upon the United States for borrowing. We concluded, therefore, that economic aid of that type from Canada was not the best way in which we could help our NATO allies, and retain our own strength at this time. Nevertheless, the kind of help we recommended, and expect to give, is just as much economic aid as if it were in the form of raw materials. That was pointed out very clearly in this debate, I thought, by the hon. member for Grey North (Mr. Bennett). Mr. Harriman himself told congress the other

day that defence support is also a form of economic assistance, and the TCC itself has accepted that position. I hope that this explanation will answer the question on this point raised by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray don).
The hon. member for Peel also addressed some questions to me on the general results of the NATO Lisbon meeting. He complained that, in spite of all I tried to say the other day, he did not yet understand what had happened. He indicated he could not understand our diplomatic language; that he was a simple, country boy and that big fancy words mean nothing to him-except, of course, when he uses them himself, which he often does with very great effect. He suggested that everything was confusion in respect of the results of the Lisbon NATO meeting, and the cause of this confusion- others on the opposite side of the house have affirmed this-was that press release which I suspect, Mr. Speaker, is the only document emanating from the Lisbon meeting that a good many members, who have criticized it, have yet read.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: It got a lot
of publicity.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It did indeed. In respect of this press release, the hon. member for Peel said that I was the culprit, and the leader of the opposition demanded an explanation of the circumstances under which it became public.	Why, he said, was this phantom
army paraded to irritate the Russians who knew perfectly well it was not accurate? Indeed, the member for Rosetown-Biggar, going I thought a little bit far in a radio broadcast last night, subscribed to the characterization of this press release as a downright lie. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that it was not, and could not fairly be so characterized.
This now famous press release was, of course, not any statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, nor was it a Canadian statement. It was not even a council communique. It was a press communique on a statement of the TCC which had been adopted by the council. Indeed, it was not even correctly quoted in the house the other evening by the leader of the opposition. There was no mention in that press release, or in any other release from the Lisbon meeting, of a figure of 100 divisions as the leader of the opposition indicated the other night when he claimed at page 870 of Hansard, that the statement said:
. . . that we would have fifty divisions toward the end of 1952, and that a hundred divisions were expected by 1954 . . .

Indeed the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar also suggested that the statement indicated that we would have 100 divisions by the end of 1954. The statement made no reference to any figure of any kind except approximately 50 divisions in appropriate stages of combat readiness by the end of 1952. I do not know the source of this figure of 100 divisions which has been attributed to this press release. The inaccuracy of such a statement could easily have been confirmed by reading the press release.
I was the chairman of the Lisbon council meeting, Mr. Speaker, and of course the chairman must accept the responsibility, as chairman, for everything that is issued in the name of the council. It is fair that he should do so. But in view of the statements that have been made about this press release, I think it might be of some interest to the house-and I would not mention this matter if so much attention had not been directed to the press release-if I indicated how this statement became public.
The wording of the paragraph in the statement which has caused so much controversy and which has been repeated so many times, in the form in which it appeared, was supplied to the council by the members of the T.C.C. who drafted the statement-members representing the United Kingdom, the United States and France: Sir Edwin Plowden, Mr. Harriman and Mr. Monnet. After drafting by the T.C.C., it was approved by the ministers of defence of these nations, or at least by a United Kingdom cabinet minister, Lord Ismay, acting for the minister of defence, and by a senior representative of France. It was also approved in the form in which it appeared by the chairman of the NATO standing group, General Bradley. It was also approved by General Eisenhower's deputy, General Gruen-ther. After that consideration and approval it was sent to the chairman for clearance.


Major James William Coldwell: Maybe that is why it was so ambiguous.


Lester Bowles Pearson: At that time clearance was given by the chairman, although attention was called to the ambiguity and the misinterpretation that might arise from one paragraph of that press release.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That attention was called by the chairman?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Attention was called by the chairman and by one or two others. However, before any consideration could be given to that matter, the press statement had leaked out on Sunday afternoon and it had been made public. That leak, I may say, was not through any Canadian source or the chairman's office, but it got in the press in that
Supply-External Affairs form. I am not trying to suggest that, because it got into the press in that form, that necessarily meant that the statement was a "downright lie" or anything that could be fairly characterized in terms such as that. It was ambiguous. I have admitted that it was ambiguous but it did say-and I suggest the intense and violent criticism of these words is not justified-that at the end of 1952 we would have 50 divisions in appropriate stages of combat readiness. The ambiguity of those words is apparent. Within a few hours of the issue of that statement, or within a few hours of the time it leaked into the press, explanations had already been made as to what we meant by 50 divisions in appropriate stages of combat readiness, and explanations on that score have been coming out nearly every day since, until now there is no reason for ambiguity on anybody's part as to what our firm goals are in NATO; that is, our firm military goals for 1952. It is perfectly clear now what we are planning for 1952. As I see it, Mr. Speaker, there is not much use in criticizing NATO's goals on the basis of what may have been issued a month ago in Lisbon. If there is to be criticism, it should be on the basis qf what we now know those goals to be. They are 50 divisions, approximately half of which will be ready for immediate service, the other half being reserve divisions available for employment at periods varying from 3 to 30 days after mobilization.
The other night in the house the question was asked: What do we mean by reserve divisions? I thought I had already explained in considerable detail, Mr. Speaker, when I quoted from a report by the secretary of defence in Washington, what we meant by that. Mr. Lovett's statement seemed to me to be fairly clear. I am, however, quite willing to repeat the explanation, although it does seem to be unnecessary, by quoting General Gruenther before the United States senate committee on foreign relations on March 24 last when General Eisenhower's deputy said:
For land forces, it is not necessary that in case of hostilities the entire strength ultimately to be mobilized be in existence ready to enter combat on the first day. Instead, what is immediately required is a "coverture" force, that is, a covering force composed of ground units in place and at a full standard of operational effectiveness. Additional units should be available in successive stages, some during the first week, some during the second, and others by thirty days or more after hostilities occur. While the latter units must have a cadre in existence in peacetime at reduced strength-and this cadre in the case of early units must be a large fraction of total ultimate manpower strength-the remaining strength can consist of trained reservists assigned to the unit and regularly trained with the unit who can join it rapidly upon mobilization. These are important features of the reserve system in operation in Europe. It is

Supply-External Affairs
economical inasmuch as these units can be maintained at a level below full strength in peace time, but it can be sufficiently effective providing the mobilization procedures are carefully worked out and necessary equipment is available.
That is from General Gruenther's explanation of what we meant by reserve divisions.


Mr. Fulton:: They are all to be European?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, they are all to be European.
So far as aircraft are concerned, we are to have 4,000 by the end of 1952; naval strength of 704 major combatant vessels- that is, destroyer escorts and larger vessels- and 925 smaller combatant vessels, such as minesweepers, etc. by the end of 1952. But the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) is not satisfied with that kind of information or explanation. He asked the other evening for complete information with regard to the state of battle readiness of these forces. Most complete disclosure, he said, was required. Surely, Mr. Speaker, he does not really expect me to tell him, even if I knew it, the state of battle readiness of every NATO division at the end of 1952. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked for this again this afternoon. Is it expected that I should give in this house the break-down of the figures for the various other countries and the details for these countries? I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be inappropriate for me to do so except on the basis of published statements by the governments of those countries, which statements we have not received and which I do not think yet exist.
Then the hon. member asked not only for complete disclosure of this kind of information but for the cost of the plan. He said: If it was not $300 billion, what was it? All I can say is that no figure has been agreed on as the cost of this plan. Surely the members of this house do not think that I could tell- or that I should tell, if I had the information -what the cost of the total NATO defence program will be.


Major James William Coldwell: Does the minister know where the $300 billion statement came from?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will mention that matter later.


Major James William Coldwell: Very well.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Our programs now are firm for 1952. Each government concerned with those firm programs for this year can work out some fairly accurate estimate of what it will likely cost that government; and no doubt that is being done. It will certainly be done by this government. Our programs for 1953 are subject to review, and for 1954 they will be subject to more review because


it is two years hence. I therefore suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is quite impossible for anyone to do anything but make the wildest guess as to what the military program for the next three years will cost the NATO countries, when that program is being subjected to continual review and has already been changed more than once. I am quite at liberty to admit that what were discussed at Lisbon by the T.C.C. experts were provisional costs for the year ahead in order to see the impact those costs would likely make on the economies of the countries concerned. But even the figures of the T.C.C. experts for the twelve months ahead were not accepted as authoritative by the governments concerned and many comments were made on those T.C.C. figures.
One reason why it is impossible to work out firm and detailed estimates of cost at the present time is that the plans themselves depend on the assistance, the defence and economic assistance, which the European countries are going to receive from overseas; and naturally they do not know yet what they are getting in that respect. So it is not easy for them to figure out what their costs are going to be; but I would be quite willing to say to the house that in all these estimates, even in these approximate estimates of what the total cost might be at the end of 1954 if we had a certain number of divisions, I have never at any time seen any compilation nor any tentative compilation nor any figure which even approached $300 billion. Where that figure of $300 billion came from I frankly do not know. It is certainly not a NATO figure, or a figure in any NATO document that I have been able to see.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister permit a question at this stage? Can the minister say a little more about it, can he be a little more specific on the division into active and reserve divisions? The minister has used the word "approximately". Mr. Lovett's statement was somewhat more than half. Can the minister be more specific than that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not think that I can be much more specific than to repeat what has been said by those who are better informed than I am. At the end of 1952 it is hoped to have about twenty-five of fifty divisions on active service, and the other twenty-five would be reserve divisions capable of being brought into active service within a month. I would not like to say that at the end of 1952 that will be the exact result, but that is the firm goal and that is what we hope to achieve during this year. I would not have mentioned that figure, of course if it had not been made public by those governments that are more concerned with building up this force than

we are in Canada at the present because they are contributing a greater proportion of the force.
I was asked the other night what the Canadian commitment was and where we stood in respect of this NATO program. I am quite willing to repeat, Mr. Speaker-it has already been said more than once in this house-that in respect of our commitment we do know where we stand in dollars. We have already tabled our estimates for defence in 1952. We have already discussed in this house last autumn a total defence program of $5 billion, which is subject to review, and this year's . figure is already in the estimates. So far as the three-year plans are concerned, that information has been given to the house. Our contribution to the end of 1954 is to be one brigade group, twelve R.C.A.F. squadrons, $325 million of mutual aid this year, $25 million for infrastructure this year and naval forces as announced. More detail will be given in the house in regard to these matters by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton).
I was asked in the house the other night whether we had any other commitments for the NATO defence program. The answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that we have none. Those are our commitments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the minister say these were commitments to the end of 1954 or 1952?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I said these were commitments for the end of 1954 except mutual aid and infrastructure payments, which are for the current year. Then the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker), I think it was, in a very interesting broadcast in which he participated the other night, said that he found it difficult to believe that the allocation to Canada in these NATO plans on the ground was only one brigade. He said:
Somehow or other I cannot conceive that in the allocation to Canada that Canada has not been asked for more than one brigade and twelve squadrons of aircraft.
I can assure him, Mr. Speaker, that that is all that we have been asked to do on the ground and in the air in the building up of this NATO defence force until the end of 1954. These are our outside commitments at the present time.
NATO plans, then, are going ahead and Canada's contribution to them has been determined. I think myself, Mr. Speaker, it is not helpful and not wise to depreciate what NATO did at Lisbon. I do not think that we attempted to deceive anybody at Lisbon, or that there was any question of deception in the minds of members. That, however, is quite a different thing from saying that we
Supply-External Affairs are under an obligation at this time to give all the military details of a planned build-up, which would certainly be welcomed with glee inside the Kremlin.
We have no illusions, Mr. Speaker, about the difficulties of what we are trying to do, and I am not suggesting that we may not have to adjust our plans as those difficulties increase or diminish. Those difficulties are political and economic, as well as military, as has been pointed out by more than one speaker in this house.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) quoted from the Economist of March 1 the other night. He quoted from an article entitled "Lisbon Illusions", illusions based on press releases, or at least on one press release; but he omitted the paragraph following the one which he quoted. That paragraph reads:
The record of success is enough to need no gilding. Differences between the military and the civilian advisers which sharply divided the Ottawa conference in September have now been largely overcome. What can be done to ensure Europe's defence without too great an economic strain is now seen much more clearly than before. How to cut the frills of military expenditure and to make supply organization more effective has been shown by General McNarney and his committee. The lesson taught by the appointment of the three wise men seems to have been learnt. NATO will henceforth supervise the military and economic effects of the defence policies of member governments and each year their capacity and progress will be reviewed by an international body.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the
minister permit a question? Did I understand the minister to say that one brigade was all that we have been asked for up to the end of 1954? Does that mean merely that that is in fact what we have been asked for, or that there is a plan of what is supposed to be on hand at the end of 1954 and of which we supply only one brigade?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not make myself clear in this. There is a three-year NATO defence plan. For the current year the goals under that plan are firm. For the subsequent two years they are programs which we hope to be able to achieve, but which are subject to review. Now, in the three-year plan Canada's commitments, as accepted by us, are firm. We agree to supply during those three years one brigade group-that is what we have been asked to do-and twelve R.C.A.F. squadrons. At the end of the third year of the plan we are expected to have produced one brigade group and twelve R.C.A.F. squadrons. That is our participation in the plan as at present determined for the three years. I do not know that I can make it any clearer than that.

Supply-External Affairs


Major James William Coldwell: Can the minister give us, or does he feel he should not give us, the target in NATO for 1954? If he says he should not give it, that is all right; if he can give it, I am asking him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to give these figures that have not been given yet by other governments and in other capitals; but as everybody knows we have been talking of a plan to be achieved by the end of 1954 which will result in having enough defensive armed strength to halt an invasion, and estimates for that purpose vary between 80, or 110 and 115 divisions. I do ' not think I can go any further than that.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, and I should have concluded long ago, I think I should say one word about the United States' relationship to all this, because there has been a good deal of talk in this house, and there is a good deal of talk outside, about what are called American influences, the possibilities of rash American policies getting us into trouble and the impetuosity of American leadership, and all that kind of thing.
I think it is quite natural that we should be preoccupied in Canada with the great power which the United States now has and now exercises. It is quite natural that we should be preoccupied as to how she might use that power. And if we are worried about that in respect of any particular aspect of policy, it certainly is the duty of the Canadian government to express its worries to the government in Washington. We do that and, I may add, I think we are listened to there. There are times, even, when we may have to speak out in public. But I suggest, and I have suggested this before, that in doing so we should never forget that the most important fact of contemporary international life is that the United States has accepted international responsibilities which match her power and her resources and her determination. I often wonder where we would be if she had not done that.
And so any public statement, any public discussion, must surely consider the effect that statement or that discussion will have upon our coalition, and the assistance it may give to those who would break up our unity, which they fear even more than our strength.
In the light of these considerations I regret that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) made on March 21 the following comment and I am now about to quote from the hon. member's statement on that date:
In his message to congress, and dealing with what has come to be known as a mutual security program, the President of the United States said

that there are only two alternatives, namely premeditated and deliberate war, or an American withdrawal to the western hemisphere.
It is apparent from any reading of the text of Mr. Truman's statement that the hon. member for Peace River has drawn an incorrect inference. I am sure he did it quite unwittingly. The relevant passage-perhaps I should draw these words also to the attention of the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) who said in his speech that there are many people down there who would actually precipitate a war today-and I read from the text of the President's statement, was:
Let us consider for a moment the costs of possible alternatives to our present policy.
That is, the present policy of foreign aid under the mutual security program. Then Mr. Truman went on:
The alternative of premeditated and deliberate war is one which no democratic or God-fearing people can for a moment entertain. Even if we were insane enough to consider it, however, it would obviously entail expenditures immensely greater than our present ones, not to speak of the terrible waste and destruction of human life, property and natural resources.
And he went on to say:
Another alternative-of contracting our commitments and retreating to the western hemisphere- has a momentary seductiveness, because it would seem to relieve us of the contributions we are now making to collective defence. But, in fact, if we followed the policy of retreat, we would have to try to replace the contributions to our security which now come from the co-operation of our allies.
Those were Mr. Truman's words, and I would say that they were wise words indeed. And I hope that the misinterpretation put upon them will not spread very far in this country. In his statement the hon. member for Acadia was, of course, ignoring the policy reflected in the mutual aid program and was considering only the two alternatives to that policy.


Mr. Quelch:: I did not refer to President Truman's speech at all. I did refer to a statement which had been made by some military men.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I meant that it was the statement of the hon. member for Peace River. I apologize to the hon. member for Acadia.
I have said recently, and I repeat it in conclusion today, that we are approaching the most difficult period in the building of NATO as our strongest deterrent against war, the period when the sense of immediate crisis has eased somewhat in Europe and when the economic and financial burden of the collective security program which has brought about this easing is becoming heavier.

During this period I feel that our policy and our attitude and our aims in Canada should be based upon the following considerations:
Recognition that the primary objective of our coalition is to secure adequate defensive military strength, but that each step to achieve this should be related to economic and political circumstances;
Recognition that a strong and healthy economy is necessary for the success of our NATO defence effort;
Recognition that, while the military leaders have great responsibilities and their influence must be great, nevertheless NATO is more than a military alliance, and in democracies such as ours the civilian representatives of the people are in control;
Recognition of the leadership and the tremendous contribution made by the United States to our peace coalition; that we should not unfairly disparage that leadership or minimize that contribution. But recognition also that NATO is a partnership and that each partner has the right and duty to express itself frankly on issues that arise and that there can be no question of one member of the coalition insisting on his own point of view;
Recognition, finally, that our collective effort to achieve adequate military strength is not an end in itself, but merely a means to an end, the establishment of peace through the solution of political problems by negotiation.
In the long run, not by the acquisition, but by the use of our strength, we shall be judged.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 31, consideration of the motion of Mr. Winkler for the second reading of Bill No. 19, for the relief of Mary Mildred Antoinette Caston-guay Smithson.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could once again make an appeal to the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) to let stand such of these
Private Bills-Divorce
bills in connection with which we have not yet received the evidence. I know the point is made that the evidence is technically before the house in the sense that a typewritten copy of it has been delivered to this house from the Senate. However, I went to my mail box just a few minutes ago and I checked all the books of evidence that we have and as yet a printed copy of the evidence in connection with Bill No. 19 has not been distributed to the members of this house.
There are quite a number of bills on the order paper in connection with which the evidence is in and I submit respectfully to the hon. member for Lisgar, as the chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills, that if the bills in that category were passed there would be a fair day's work for the committee. The bill now before us is not one in connection with which the evidence is in. If the hon. member would allow this bill to stand I would be glad to indicate the numbers of the bills in connection with which the evidence is in and to the second reading of which I for one would have no objection.


Mr. Winkler:: If we could have the assurance of everyone that the bills in connection with which the evidence has been distributed could be passed I would be quite willing.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I cannot speak for everyone, but speaking for myself I can say that if the hon. member for Lisgar would let this bill stand and in its place move the second readings of the bills, the numbers of which I would be prepared to indicate, I would be willing to let that motion pass.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: That is quite agreeable to me.


Mr. Speaker:: Possibly the hon. member would indicate those bills in connection with which he would not object to second reading being given.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall be glad to do that. The numbers of the bills on today's order paper in connection with which the evidence has been distributed are as follows: 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 33, 35, 36, 39, 40, 41, 45, 47, 49, 50, 51, 54, 57, 60, 15, 72, 74, 75, 79, 83, 84, 90. Bill No. 15 is out of its consecutive order, because it was adjourned some days ago.
I have not counted the bills I have just listed, but I think their total is something in the order of twenty-five or thirty bills which would be close to half of the seventy odd bills now on the order paper. I notice that there are a few booklets of evidence which have been delivered in advance of the bills to which they belong. I mention that to account for the total number we have received to date.

Private Bills-Divorce
Naturally I have not had time to read the evidence in connection with these twenty-five or thirty bills. I checked them through, as it were, and I have not found any case where there was opposition to the divorce. In every case I have looked at, the respondent though called did not appear. In other words, none of these cases was contested.
As I said a moment ago, speaking for myself, if the hon. member for Lisgar would move the second reading of these bills which I have indicated I would not object at this stage.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I would so move.


Mr. Speaker:: What happens to the bill that has been called?


Mr. Weir:: It could stand to be called later this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Will it stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

Howard Waldemar Winkler: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Elsie Alexandria Thompson Parr.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Cosmo Iellamo. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Joan Mary Hoerner Hawley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Jennie Harris Klaiman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Cecile Emilie Viger Ross.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Kathleen Marjorie Hastings Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Doris Abbott Watts.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Hyman Krull.- Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Grace Catherine Piche Lovegrove.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Bruce Edward Steggles.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Alexander Malcolm Dick.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Rose Dorothy Weatherbee Stopps.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Misha Paunovic.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 49, for the relief of Helen Maude Walmesley Cherry.-Mr. Winkler.

Bill No. 50, for the relief of Margaret Ann Greenaway Worrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 51, for the relief of Isabel Welch Remillard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Karl Gunnar Tammi.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Louisa Crawford Gordonsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Mary Rita Estella Brennan Henderson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 15, for the relief of Hilda Richardson Tait.
Bill No. 72, for the relief of Olga Katchan Parisella.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 74, for the relief of Frederick James Perkins.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Roger Lessard.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 79, for the relief of Herve Bru-nelle.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 83, for the relief of Marie Anna Brassard Bachand.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 84, for the relief of Serna Rubin Charles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 90, for the relief of Dorothy L. Grauer Shapiro.-Mr. Winkler.
Motion agreed to on division.


Mr. Speaker:: What is the next order of business?


William Gilbert Weir: Second reading of Bill No. 21.


Mr. Speaker:: Do we proceed with Bill No. 21?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I believe we should let these stand under the circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house that all the remaining divorce bills on the order paper should stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that the wish of the sponsor?


Howard Waldemar Winkler: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I believe that was the understanding.



BOUNDARY PIPELINE CORPORATION

Mr. F. H. Larson (Kindersley) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Stanley Howard Knowles: the second reading of Bill No. 3, to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act (voluntary revocable check-off).
He said: Mr. Speaker, if I could hope that the motion for second reading of this bill would pass as readily as the other motions for second reading that have been presented this evening, I would refrain from speaking. But I imagine there are others who may decide to speak on the bill-briefly, I hope-so I wish to take a few minutes to urge the house that on this occasion this bill to provide for the voluntary revocable check-off should be adopted.
This is a measure which in principle has the support of all the political parties represented in this house. They have all indicated that support in one way or another, at one time or another. As a matter of fact the parties on the opposition side of this house have voted for this bill on previous occasions, notably last year when those voting for it included not only the members on this side of the house but 17 Liberals and my genial and independent friend the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Gibson). Not only that, but at its 1948 national convention the Liberal party went on record as being in favour of union security. That is a very broad term which can be implemented in a number of different ways. The voluntary revocable check-off, I submit, is the minimum form of union security.
If this bill became law it would mean that with respect to workers governed by the federal labour code a union, properly certified under the act, could request the employer to agree to the check-off. The check-off would mean that the employer would deduct from the wages of the employee his union dues, and turn them over to the union. Even after a properly certified union asked for the check-off it would still be necessary under the provisions of this bill for each individual employee desiring to have his dues so deducted to so indicate in writing. Further it is provided that the employee could at any time revoke that provision. Many of us in this house would like to see a wider measure of union security. This is its minimum form.
I would point out that this provision is already contained in the labour codes of several of the provinces. In fact, as I pointed out on a previous occasion, the first time this bill was presented one member on the government side expressed amazement that it was necessary at all; he had become
Industrial Relations
so accustomed to the fact that the check-off was in the law of his province that he had assumed it was the law of the land generally.
Support for this measure comes not only from the trade unions, who are anxious to have it, but in a wide measure from the public representatives of the various parties in this house. I indicated a moment ago that on the last occasion the bill was before the house it received support not only from the opposition side but from some 17 Liberals and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. That was the third time the wording of this bill was put to a vote in this house. The first time was on June 17, 1948, when 35 members of the House of Commons voted for the voluntary revocable check-off in this precise language. The next time it came to a vote was on May 30, 1950, when 45 members of this house voted for it. The third time was on February 28, 1951, when 67 members voted for it. I submit that is a hopeful record. The number is increasing every time this bill comes to a vote, and I hope this will be the time a majority will vote for it so it may become the law as far as our federal labour code is concerned.
I would point out that in addition to many representations which reach members from local unions across the country-railroad unions in particular, because that is the largest group of workers coming under federal labour jurisdiction-representations to have the check-off in the labour code have been made annually for some time by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada and by the Canadian Congress of Labour. Not only have these representations been made repeatedly in former years, but in the representations made by each of the congresses to the federal government only last week they again asked for the inclusion of a check-off provision in the federal labour code.
The only representations I know of which have been made against the voluntary revocable check-off are in the form of a mimeographed memorandum coming from the Railway Association of Canada, which I believe has been sent to all members of this house. One or two members, or perhaps more, have spoken to me about this memorandum. Some of them, on looking at it rather casually, were under the impression that the association represented railway workers. I am sure hon. members realize that that is not the case, that the Railway Association of Canada is an association of the railway companies. It is the association that appeals to the board of transport commissioners for increases in freight rates and so on. It does not represent the employees. Their representations against the

Industrial Relations
bill do not seem to me convincing at all. In the main, they argue that it is a matter of bookkeeping. I believe that practically the only new point in their brief in opposition to the bill this year is their assertion that because of the necessity of trying to keep down railway operating expenses they should not be asked to take on the additional expense of the bookkeeping involved in the check-off. There are few complaints against the other forms of check-off, the check-off for income tax, for contributions to the Red Cross and other organizations, for Canada savings bonds and so on. Why this objection to the checkoff for trade union dues?
It seems to me that opposition to this bill is, in effect, opposition to the basic principle involved in it, a principle that every party in this house supports, namely the principle of union security. As I said earlier tonight, and as I said when this matter was under debate on former occasions, most of us would like to see a greater measure of union security. That is no reason for the failure to take this initial step.
One of these days this bill is going to pass. Support for it is growing, and I see no reason why the time for passing this bill need not be this occasion. I hope the house will let it come to a vote at the earliest possible opportunity, and that when that vote is called the bill will pass and this house will accord to labour the recognition of its position in our economy that is requested in this bill, and to which labour is fully entitled.


Mr. David A. Croll (Spadina):: I have been one of those who have consistently and persistently supported this bill. I had something to do with this matter originally when we attempted to incorporate the principle in the dominion labour code. It is becoming a perennial, but it is improving with age. The hon. member who has just spoken has indicated that, from year to year, the number supporting this bill has grown. There are two important words in the bill, the word "voluntary" and the word "revocable". This means that the employees must ask for the check-off, and they can change their minds and cancel it when they so wish. The provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Prince Edward Island have the voluntary check-off written into their labour codes. The province of Ontario has not a check-off for the labouring people who come under collective agreements, but on the other hand the farmers of Ontario already enjoy the check-off under section 315 of the municipal act, under which they pay a specified amount to the federation of agriculture.

There are many kinds of union security, the check-off being the least possible. I have here a clipping from the Labour Gazette. "Speaking of 6,350 manufacturing establishments employing almost 736,500 plant workers during the pay period preceding October, 1950, it says that according to this survey 2,912 establishments reported having collective agreements. Of this total, 1,975 or approximately two-thirds reported having the check-off." There are none of us in this house who question the right of any man to belong to a union, nor do we question the right of anyone to pay dues to a union or of the unions who impose dues. By legislation and otherwises we encourage men to join unions, and we recognize the right of the union to collect dues.
Employers in this country are asking that the unions be more responsible. In return the unions ask for a greater measure of union security. It seems to me that is a fair deal. Where you have a secure union, you have a responsible one. When collective agreements are freely entered into, then management expects the union to speak for all the employees covered by the agreement. This can only be done if the employees belong and pay dues to the union. In that way it is helpful for management to nail down responsibility. It seems to me it is in the interest of management to see that union dues are paid, that the union is strong and in that way more responsible. We sometimes find it difficult to understand why management will check off Red Cross donations, payroll savings, unemployment insurance-in fact, they will check off almost anything except union dues.
On occasion in this house the argument has been used that management is put to some expense if they check off union dues. If there is some expense, I concede management the right to charge it to the unions who have indicated on more than one occasion that they will gladly pay for it. As a matter of fact, the representations made by the Railway Association of Canada make that point. I think we can agree with them that if there is any extraordinary expense involved, the union might well be asked to pay for it. I have spoken to this bill every year when it has come before the house, and it has been before the house four years. I have listened patiently to the arguments on behalf of management trying to find out exactly what is in their minds, and why they refuse to give this measure of security to their employees when they have entered into collective bargaining agreements. Time and again, all I have heard management say is, "Don't give labour the check-off." When

you finally ask why we should not give labour the check-off, they say, "Well, it is valuable to us; we can horse-trade with it. Usually when we sit around a table we can trade the checkoff to the union for three, four or maybe five cents an hour. We can only do it once, but that once makes it valuable to us. For that reason, we do not want to give labour checkoff rights."
I do not think that is a very impressive argument. I have not heard any better, except the argument presented to this house that there is an element of compulsion in the check-off. Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the labour codes of this country, whether he reads the dominion or provincial codes, will know that there are many elements of compulsion in those acts far more compelling than the check-off. In so far as I am concerned I think the time has come when we have had sufficient discussion of this problem. We should now fully realize that this measure is in the interest not only of labour but of management. I repeat that if management wants responsible union leadership, they have to make the union secure. Where you find a secure union, you find a responsible union. I think the time for this house to take action is long overdue. The measure should have been passed when it first came before this house some four years ago. In the representations made by the Railway Association of Canada they say in part:
By making the voluntary revocable check-off mandatory on the request of a union, it introduces a new principle into federal labour legislation.
That is not as I read the dominion labour legislation. Some of us here in the house who were in the committee that spent considerable time in preparing that labour code will know that there are many elements of compulsion far more serious than the check-off.
They speak of Bill No. 3, "when it was last before parliament and concerning the difficulties in costs peculiar to large railway systems for making the check-off of union dues." The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that this Railway Association of Canada is more concerned with freight rates than they are with the interests of the employees. I think that this representation should be given the value which it deserves, and in my opinion that is not too much.
I had intended to say just a very few words about the bill. I do not wish to delay it. There are others who have something to say and who want to make their contribution to the debate. All I ask this house to do is, once and for all, when the opportunity presents 55704-65
Industrial Relations
itself-whether tonight or on another occasion-to give the union men something that they have earned, something that they have deserved and something that will give them greater stability. I think we shall need a great deal of it in the years ahead. This is one way of indicating to them that we want them to be strong, responsible and secure. There is not one good argument against giving the men the check-off, except that the employers want to use it for horse-trading. I think the time has come for us to deal with the matter, and this is as good an occasion as any.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I had
not intended to speak on this bill, Mr. Speaker, but my experience with trades and labour unions-and I was once the president of a union-is that a union cannot carry on without having funds to pay their way. I also found that there are even some people who would like to get the advantages of a union without their costing them anything. Like the hon. member who has just spoken, I cannot find many strong arguments against this bill. If it was proposed by a member on this side of the house, I suppose there would not be any difficulty. We have to be honest and outspoken about the matter. I am going to support this bill.


Mr. J. H. Dickey (Halifax):: As the hon.
member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has said, Mr. Speaker, this has come to be a perennial bill. On the first two occasions on which it was presented, I think I spoke in the debate. Last year when it was before the house I believe I did not speak but voted against it. I had several inquiries from some of my labour friends in my constituency as to my reasons for opposing the bill. Having that fact in mind, I thought perhaps I should say a few words on it this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You could change your mind.


John Horace Dickey: The bill proposed by the hon. member is an amendment to the federal labour code which was adopted by this parliament during the first session in which I had the honour of sitting in this house. The full title of the bill, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Fleming:: Why not read the whole bill? It would take more time.


John Horace Dickey: -I think indicates the reason for opposing the proposal, whether or not one considers the form of the revocable check-off contained in the amendment to be a good or a bad thing. The full title of the bill is: An act to provide for the investigation, the conciliation and the settlement of industrial disputes. I think these words express the philosophy of the approach to labour-management

Industrial Relations
problems which was held strongly by the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell who up to the date of his sudden and regrettable passing was the minister of labour in this government. I think there would certainly not be a member in this house who sat in this house with the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell who did not have the greatest admiration for his wisdom, his qualities, and the labour statesmanship which he represented. In a field such as that of labour relations, while we would not expect everybody to be of one mind, yet in the labour movement itself, I think there was then-and I believe there still is-an exceedingly high regard for Mr. Mitchell and for the work that he did for the improvement of working conditions and the improvement of the lot of union members, labourers and working people in this country generally. I think that Mr. Mitchell was clearly of the Samuel Gompers school of labour statesmen. I think that his contribution to labour-management relations, particularly during the difficult war years in this country, was outstanding.
As I say, I think that the title of this act expresses his philosophy in labour-management matters, namely that governments should and must provide the machinery whereby labour disputes can be investigated, conciliated and settled. It was to carry out this principle that the federal labour code was designed. The operation of the act is this. Provision is made, first of all, to authorize the formation of unions; second, to set up procedures for the certification of a particular union to represent a particular group of employees; third, to set up and to recognize procedures for collective bargaining so that the union representing the employees could be entitled and assisted to sit down and bargain with their employer for the kind of wages, hours, working conditions and other matters that they felt were required in their particular industry or employment. And the act went further than that. It defined very clearly certain things which were described as unfair labour practices. But the labour code, intentionally, and as a matter of policy, went no further than that. It does not deal, and intentionally does not deal, with that large classification of matters that have always been regarded as matters which should be settled by the procedure of collective bargaining between the employers and the employees in the particular business or industry concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the hon. member permit a question? Is he aware of the fact that the provincial labour code in his own province of Nova Scotia includes the check-off in that legislation?


John Horace Dickey: This simply shows, Mr. Speaker, that this is an annual debate, because the hon. member, as he will recall, asked me the same question at least once, if not twice, before when I was-


Stanley Howard Knowles: If so, it was probably at the same point in the same speech.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member should recall his own questions, which would be just as fine an exercise of memory as my remembering my own speech; but the answer, which he perhaps will recall as well, is that of course I am aware that this particular matter is dealt with in the labour code in the province of Nova Scotia, and a good many of the provincial labour acts do proceed on a slightly different principle from the principle that was laid down in the federal labour code. I am not going to argue this evening as to which of these approaches is the best. My argument is simply that the whole approach of the federal labour code is to treat these matters as matters which should be the subject of collective bargaining, and to simply set up the machinery to enable these matters to be settled by collective bargaining.
The introduction of the particular amendment contained in this bill would be-I am sure that even the hon. member who sponsors the bill will be prepared to admit this-a fundamental departure from that principle. He is in favour of departing from that principle. I, Mr. Speaker, am not, at this stage, prepared to depart from that principle. I believe that if we, in this parliament, are to adopt a new principle, and a different principle, in the approach to these matters, then it should not be done with respect to one isolated instance; that if a new principle is required, then we should consider very carefully the whole field, and we should come to what this house considers to be the correct decision as to whether or not a number of these matters should become part of a general labour code.
If the question of the check-off should be written into this legislation, perhaps we should also write the forty-hour week into the labour code. Perhaps we should write in certain provisions for minimum wages.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order. Is it not a rule that on the second reading of a bill one should speak to the principle of the bill and not introduce extraneous matters?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, I submit that, on the point of order, I am clearly discussing the principle of the bill and not introducing any extraneous matter at all.


Mr. Speaker:: If I stop the hon. member now, I will be very strict and I would have to apply the same strictness on second reading of all bills. I would be very glad to do so, but I do not think the house would be pleased with that. I think the hon. member for Halifax was merely making a reference.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, that I think is the essential principle of this bill, and I think it is something that hon. members should have before them when they consider how they will vote upon it.
I know that the hon. member who sponsors this bill and the members who sit around him in that particular group are firm believers in the extension of legislation of this kind.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are some of the members who sit around you.


John Horace Dickey: Surely those members can speak for themselves and do not require you to speak for them. Effective government has not been carried out by the imposition of certain rules and regulations for the conduct of employer-employee relations, as well as many other relationships in our national life. I think we have to be guided by certain principles in deciding where we think governments should step in and impose a certain particular thing on any group or groups in this country.
The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has pointed out that the labour code does impose certain things which some people in this country still do not feel are necessary or required for the proper organization of employee unions, or for the proper dealing with employer-employee relations. However, I think that a very large majority of the people in Canada would feel that the procedures which are set down in the labour code, and which are imposed on both labour and management, are necessary and proper for the effective operation of our whole economic system. I do not think, however, Mr. Speaker, that we have come to the point where that argument could be made for the particular procedure that is contained in this bill. There is to my mind a difference, and a great difference, between the setting up of machinery for the free use of Canadians to achieve their ends, and the imposing by legislation of a particular feature of this kind. The great and grave danger of that kind of legislation, which was always pointed out by the late Hon. Humphrey Mitchell when he was dealing with these matters, was that what a government gives a government can take away. I think it would not be to the advantage of labour and labour unions in Canada, in the long run, to have amendments of this kind made to the labour code, without a complete and reasonable consideration of the full 55704-65J
Industrial Relations
principle involved. I think it would be well however for the management of the industries which come under the federal labour code to take note of the debate which has taken place in the last three or four years in the house with respect to this bill, and similar bills preceding it, and the debate which took place in the house and the committee on labour relations when the labour code was being considered in 1947.
The check-off is a well recognized procedure in many industries, and is enjoyed by many unions in this country. 1 would be surprised if anyone in the house were in this debate or any other debate even to attempt to oppose the principle of the check-off. It is a procedure which, as has been so well pointed out by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), has the effect of helping to achieve the two great objectives in our labour-management relations, and that is responsibility on both sides and security on both sides.
I firmly believe that the management of companies and industries which would be affected by any change of this kind in our labour code should very carefully consider their position and, for that matter, the unions should consider carefully their position and see if it is not possible for them to achieve this check-off, which they wish to secure, through the proper use of the procedures of conciliation and collective bargaining which the federal labour code sets up for them, and which were intended to permit the unions to secure things such as the check-off and other conditions leading to union security.


Mr. Pierre Gauthier (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, though far from being an expert on this question, 1 have acquired some knowledge from reading the bill and listening to the speeches of hon. members. I listened with particular care to the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll), because what he says is always of interest. Of course I do not agree with all the principles he enunciates in the house on different questions. However it must be recognized that he is a good member and a good worker.
I note however that the bill says that-
Upon request of a trade union entitled to bargain collectively under this act on behalf of a unit of employees and upon receipt of a request in writing signed by any employee in such unit, the employer of such employee shall, until the employee in writing withdraws such request, periodically deduct-
And so on. There are two points that come to my mind when 1 read that part of the section, and they are these: First, I believe the union is surrendering to the employer part of its sovereignty. I look at the section in that way; that is the way I would interpret

Supply-External Affairs it. Then, secondly, I note that the request is made to the employer to deduct at the source.
Those two points make me think of other discussions we have had in the house, in which it has been pointed out that the surrendering of a part of a nation's sovereignty is a bad thing. I believe it is bad for a union to surrender a part of its sovereignty. If I were a worker, and saw the adoption of a bill of this kind, I would look at my union as something becoming weaker and weaker every day, because it would seem to me that it did not want to do its job. It would be passing its job on to the employer, and would be surrendering sovereignty.
Then there is reference to making deductions at the source of the income. Will anyone rise in his place and say that he is pleased or satisfied with the tax on income deducted at the source? Are the people ready to say that deductions at the source are popular? Yet, that is what happens in this bill, because it asks employers to make deductions at the source of union fees. In other words the bill passes the buck to the employer. After receiving so much through the strength and the responsibility of unions, the worker asks the employer to do the unions' job. That is what I think this bill means. If I am mistaken, then I will expect someone to correct me.
I see my hon. friend from Montmagny-L'lslet (Mr. Lesage) smiling. I may have said something wrong; and, if I have, I should like to know about it. I am always happy to acquire more knowledge on a question, and I said at the outset of my remarks that I was far from being a specialist in this matter. I want to know more about it; and that is why I would not like to see the bill adopted now-because I, for one, want to know more, so that I may be able to discuss it.


Some hon. Members:: Nine o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being nine o'clock, the house will return to the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FOREIGN POLICY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Wright.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to venture very far or very boldly into the realm of high diplomacy. Like the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), I am a small-town boy, and I feel sometimes, as I listen to diplomatists, that they are talking about mysteries which I shall
IMr. Gauthier (Portneuf).]

never fully understand. It is in an upper air where the walking seems a bit treacherous to me.
This afternoon, as the minister was speaking, we seemed to be going round and round. There is a French proverb which says: Plus ga change, plus c'est la meme chose.


Pierre Gauthier: Tres bien.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understand that, in English, it means that the more it changes, the more it is the same thing. At any rate, that is the idea I am trying to convey. The minister seemed to me a bit like a man who was weaving a web:
"Won't you come into my parlour?",
Said the spider to the fly.
I think on the whole the flies were avoiding the web very well indeed. The minister referred deftly to resolutions for which certain people had voted years ago, perhaps under very different circumstances. The minister was trying to entangle them all in his web and to make clear that anything that was said now which was in the least critical was entirely inconsistent with the things they had said years before.
I hope I do not sound as if I were being controversial because I had intended this evening to deal entirely with non-controversial things. I had intended to talk merely about some of the safeguards which it seems to me we have against this communist menace, and in particular the moral safeguards. But I was diverted from my course a little by one or two things which the minister said this afternoon and about which I should like to comment very briefly.
I think we should face the fact that in diplomacy there are secrets; there are things which we cannot expect the whole world to know. No doubt people who deal in that atmosphere almost inevitably come to have a rather cagey attitude toward the giving of any information. I remember once during the war when the military mind was accused of that. I remember when some military secrets were being withheld and one journalist said that while he could understand that there might be military secrets, he could also understand that there were people with military minds whose attitude was "What do the public want to know that for? Well damn them they won't".
Sometimes I feel that there may be dangers of this attitude in the realm of diplomacy. Therefore, we must not be surprised if it has taken quite a long time to get information. I think we did get some information this afternoon that we have been waiting for quite a while. We did learn of our Canadian

commitments in Europe up to 1954. We did learn about the puzzling problem of divisions, the twenty-five or the fifty divisions, or the hundred divisions. Those are numbers which got bandied about and which got into very responsible hands from time to time. I refer to such newspapers as the London Times.
I want to say just a word or two about these divisions because I think this afternoon the minister did come much nearer to making us understand the situation. There is that phrase, "in appropriate conditions of combat readiness". The minister explained that this afternoon. He said that it appeared in a press communique, that it was a statement prepared I understand by the "three wise men" and adopted by the NATO command. Then the minister used an interesting phrase; he said that that phrase "leaped out on Sunday afternoon" apparently when nobody was looking.


Gordon Graydon: Cruising down the river.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Yes. The thing that surprised me, and I am still confused about the matter and I hope the minister at a later time will make this clear, is that apparently at the time attention was called to this ambiguity, but nevertheless clearance was given. That is what I understood the minister to say this afternoon, that notwithstanding the ambiguity of the statement having received the approval of some very august persons, it was approved. It seems to me that "ambiguity" is a most conservative word to use in connection with that phrase. I never think that one needs to use rough words about these things, but in its issue of March 8 the Economist says this:
The Atlantic council, while assembled in Lisbon, rashly allowed itself to say that some fifty divisions "in appropriate conditions of combat readiness" would be provided to defend western Europe in 1952. As was pointed out on all hands, if "combat readiness" means the same as "ready to fight immediately" then the statement must be quite untrue and therefore inexcusable.
I am not saying that the statement is untrue, I am just saying that I cannot understand how serious men could have used a statement of that kind. It was not only ambiguous, it was perfectly clear that it was designed entirely to create an impression of strength far beyond what reality warranted. I can remember reading a statement referring not only to the fifty divisions but to the one hundred divisions for which we can find no parentage whatever. Apparently that was just a foundling child that nobody will father. However, it did get into the London Times; 85 to 100 were the figures that got in there.
I am not talking about that, except to refer to it in passing.
Supply-External Affairs
I think this phrase "in appropriate conditions of combat readiness" could be used as a model for a phrase to confuse the issue. I think it ought to appear in future textbooks as a model. I remember when I read it first the words "combat readiness" struck me. Then I saw the word "appropriate" which interested me very much. "Appropriate to what?" I have never understood what it was "appropriate" to. Does it mean that you can have a division in an appropriate condition of combat readiness when it is 95 per cent ready? Can you have another division in appropriate condition of combat readiness when it is 5 per cent ready? I do not know.
It did seem to me that the phrase was unfortunate, that it never should have been used. I have just one further comment to make. The minister said that within a few hours of that phrase being used explanations began to be given. I should think that that is quite right. I think the minister also said that they have been giving them ever since. I think that that is quite right. I have just one suggestion to make. I think it would have saved a lot of trouble if instead of being constantly on the defensive somebody had come clean and said, "We made a great mistake, let us wipe it off and start again." That is apparently a thing that has never been done and so we have had explanation piled on explanation. But I do think that this afternoon we got nearer to reality.
May I give some advice to the minister who is a comparatively recent arrival in politics. He is even more recent than I am although much more distinguished. I give him this advice quite freely. As a matter of fact, we had a man in our province who used to practise this in a big way. He was the premier of the province and his name was Hepburn. Occasionally he made mistakes but he had a wonderful technique in dealing with them. When he made a mistake he used to admit it without any reservations and by the time he was through he had taken the ball away from the other fellow and there was nothing more to be said. I should not say that actually nothing was said, but as a technique I commend it to the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It is better not to make so many mistakes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) says that it is better not to make so many mistakes, and I agree with him. If he has any other suggestions he would like to make to me I would be glad to have them. That is the controversial part of my speech and I think you will agree it is not very controversial. I seem to be getting on much better than I did

Supply-External Affairs yesterday. I come now to what we may call the constructive part of my speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The other part was not constructive.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: For a few
minutes I want to speak about what to me seemed, to be the safeguards that we have in this strange world in which we live. I suppose it is fair to say that today "external affairs" means Russia, with China thrown in. Fifty years ago I suppose external affairs meant France and Germany. We were not on very good terms with either of those countries during the Boer war. Then the Germans began to build up their navy at the turn of the century and from 1905 to 1945 the enemy was Germany with Russia somewhere in the background. We used to hear a lot about the Russian bear and about the frontier of Afghanistan; but it was not until after this last war that Russia became the enemy.
Well, there are various defences which we have. The first is what I will call the economic defence, and I shall refer to a word or two from the speech of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) some weeks ago. He referred to the raising of the standards of living, the feeding of the hungry among the depressed peoples everywhere; and he gave this as the best insurance we could have in the long run against communism or any other form of totalitarianism. I would agree with the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar that we should not neglect that defence, that safeguard, that we should follow it as best we can. But I would also utter a warning that we should not allow ourselves to believe for one moment that it can be a complete solution. After all, we could have poured the wealth of Croesus into Czechoslovakia in 1947 and it would not have affected the coup that took place there. Indeed, as someone has pointed out, it would have merely meant that we had strengthened Czechoslovakia so that when the coup took place we actually would have strengthened Russia just that much more. So I say that while we should not neglect the economic remedy or safeguard, we should not regard it as too important. We are giving assistance under the Colombo plan, of which we all approve; but when we face Russia let us remember that it is communism plus the old Russian imperialism. We should never be in any doubt about that at all.
It seems perfectly clear that except in the free world, when a country becomes strong it wishes to dominate other people, to stuff its theories down their throats. It is not prepared, as we are, to live and let live. Without congratulating ourselves unduly, and without overlooking our own faults, I think


we can say that on the whole our characteristic is that we are ready to live and let live. Let anyone look at what happened in the nineteenth century when the commonwealth- we did not call it that then-was pretty well cock of the walk. Let anyone consider what happened then. We went around the world offering to other people what we at any rate considered the greatest thing in the world, political liberty and parliamentary institutions. That is something I like to remember, because I think it does show that we had and I hope still have that great quality of tolerance. Of course we should have, because after all tolerance is our stock in trade and I suppose could be said to be characteristic of our way of life.
As I say, the economic safeguard is to be zealously pursued, but must not be regarded as capable of doing more than it can. As to the military safeguard I will say nothing more; that has been discussed to death.
It may be said that the two safeguards I have mentioned, economic and military, refer to things outside our country; that they are concerned with what we do outside our country, either by economic or military means.
Now I want to say a word or two about the safeguards within our country. First I mention the necessity of taking steps against those strange people in our midst who apparently are prepared to undermine the very civilization that nourishes them and to which they owe everything. Of course in order to take care of people like that we must have police.	Happily we are well
equipped in that regard, and must continue to maintain a strong and satisfactory police force. I confess that I was one of those people who were very slow to believe that men who talk like ourselves, who are educated like ourselves, who live like ourselves, who seem almost indistinguishable from ourselves, should be prepared to conspire against their own country and against the very civilization to which they owe everything. My belief was shaken by a book many hon. members have read, called "The God that Failed". I have quoted this book in this house on other occasions, and I mention it tonight only to recall to the minds of hon. members that it is a book of recantation written by half a dozen men of distinction in various countries who went off toward the communist side but who, when they saw the realities, came back and were brave enough-and it took bravery-to confess their mistake and publicize it.
As I say, it is disturbing to find that we have such people in our midst; and I suggest it means that we should do some very careful

stocktaking of ourselves and of our way of life to see that when we talk so glibly and with such self-satisfaction about our way of life, there are no flaws in it, no ways in which we should set our own house in order.
What is our way of life? We talk about it an awful lot. I sometimes wonder whether a stranger coming here and taking a superficial look might not think our way of life consisted of radios, television, motorcars, washing machines and mixmasters. He would certainly think they occupied a very large part of our lives indeed. I would say without hesitation that if we should drift to the point where that really was our preoccupation, in the end we should fall; because, as I shall seek to show later, we are not facing a lot of people who are merely slaves. They are slaves from our point of view, but they are slaves of a strange kind, with an enthusiasm for their slave life.
Coming back to our way of life again, I would like to say what everyone in this house will agree with; that in the end it is morale that is going to count. We all know that in wartime it is morale that counts. I am fond of telling a story that happened during the first war. A good many will remember that we nearly lost that war in March, 1918. At that time there was a meeting in Doullens at which the great Foch was made commander in chief, at which Lord Milner represented the British war cabinet and at which Lord Byng, who was afterwards a beloved governor general of this country, was present as a general commanding an army. Milner relates that he asked Byng that day whether he thought the line could be held; it was in terrible jeopardy at the time. Byng's answer was interesting. He did not say, "Yes, it can be held if we get twenty more divisions, or if we get a thousand more guns." He said, "Yes, it can be held if we believe in our cause." I like to remember that, because I believe it is true. We all know that in war the morale is several times more important than the materiel; and though we are not in a war now we are in a time not very different from war. We talk about the cold war in Korea, in Malaya and in Indo-China, but it is not very cold. They are doing enough fighting there; not so much in Korea at the moment, perhaps, though even there fighting goes on. I sometimes think we do not have these young men half enough in mind. The men in Korea seem far off. One of the things that surprise me is that in any church I have been in I have scarcely heard a reference to the men in Korea. It seems to me an astonishing thing that they are not remembered every time people meet together in that way.
Supply-External Affairs
So I repeat that I wonder if we have a firm grasp of principles, because in the long run it is morale which will settle these things. It is in this starkly practical sense- because I do not set myself up to give moral lectures-that I venture to say a few words on this subject. As I said a moment ago, a casual observer might think our lives here were entirely dominated by irrelevant things. He might find precious little evidence that we are concentrating at all on the things by which we say we live. The other day the hon. member for Peel made a remark that impressed me. He said it was extraordinarily difficult to crusade for the things you have, and I think that is a remark we might all ponder, because if in some way we are not able to summon up something of the spirit of a crusade for the things we have, then they will wither way. We must really bring back something of that spirit.
What do we mean when we talk about our way of life? That is a terribly important question. Well, I suppose the natural answer most people will give is that it is the free way of life, the tolerant way of life. Then, I suppose they would likely say it is the Christian way of life. I wonder if they would find that a very satisfactory answer. I wonder if, when they say it is the Christian way of life, they have certain searchings of the heart? I think if they visited many of our churches they may have great searchings of the heart on that subject.
Then, they might say the rule of law: the conception that every man is equal before the law, and therefore it is the embodiment of the great Christian principle that men are equal before God. That is true, but I should like to ask again, is that a fully satisfying answer? Do we feel that the rule of law prevails as we should like it? Do we not find constant efforts to escape it? Do we not find constant efforts of the strong to profit at the expense of the weak, and to override the law?
Even in this chamber we are sometimes surprised by what seems to us to be things which entirely go against the rule of law. Last night in this chamber I was quite astounded to hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)-indeed if I had not been here I would hardly believe he could have said it-make a statement concerning legislation by estimates. We had been protesting against various instances where items in the estimates were used as virtual legislation. We had pointed out in several cases that there should be a statute, and finally I made a request to the Prime Minister in connection with a bill concerning lieutenant governors. I asked the Prime Minister if it would not

Supply-External Affairs be proper to introduce legislation, and the Prime Minister said, as recorded at page 976 of Hansard for March 31:
If it were done in the direct way-
That is by legislation.
-there would be at least six occasions for debate upon it. There would be the resolution stage, the three readings of the bill and so on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, I doubt if the hon. member can refer to a previous debate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I bow to
your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I am pointing out that in a previous debate the Prime Minister gave an answer-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, the hon.
member cannot refer to a previous debate.


Mr. Fraser:: If he does not mention the debate, he can.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The debate was mentioned.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I now pass to another non-controversial item. I should like to say just a word or two about freedom itself, because sometimes I think freedom is regarded as something which makes life easy, something which removes obligation, something which is like reclining on an easy couch. I should like to protest against that conception of freedom. Freedom comes from struggle, and it can only be maintained by struggle. There is a book by Lippmann, called "The Good Society," and in the flyleaf of that book he has a quotation of four lines from Milton which I think all freedom-loving people should keep in mind. He describes what can happen, when we lose the belief that freedom is an energetic thing, a strenuous thing. He has in mind a society where men have become so imbued with the desire for security, for protection, for escape from risk, for escape from endeavour, that they become effete. I shall read these lines because they are brief, and they contain a warning in their eloquent terms:
But what more oft, in nations grown corrupt, And by their vices brought to servitude.
Than to love bondage more than liberty- Bondage with ease than strenuous liberty.
Now, I mention that, Mr. Speaker, just as a warning of the kind of thing which we can slip into if we become security minded, leisure minded, and if we forget that our whole society was built up by effort and by risk-taking. That is the only way we can maintain it.
My last point is this. I think we are apt to comfort ourselves from time to time with the feeling that we are bound to win this struggle because we are free men fighting against slaves, and slaves are just poor, dumb, driven cattle; they cannot amount to 

much. You will recall that that is not the way we were talking about Russian soldiers seven or eight years ago. We thought very highly of them then. I should like to make one or two comments on that. Recently, I ran across a very interesting report in that hard-boiled publication "The New Yorker". One of their reporters had been talking with some Russians called Sobens recently arrived in New York and living in New York, who had come from the other side of the iron curtain. I found extremely interesting the reactions of those Russians to the kind of life they were living, and in which they were making a success.
I should like to read one or two short extracts on this point. The reporter says:
From the material point of view, the Sobens said, their first two years here were gratifying . . .
This prosperity confused the Sobens. They were troubled by the realization that they were committing meshchanstvo-an offence, in Russian eyes. Igor defined it for me as "living for oneself, without regard for one's brother."
Later again the reporter says:
The Sobens became increasingly convinced that in this country the accumulation of personal comforts was the primary objective, the accepted order of things. "The people here seemed to us to be living for themselves," Zina said. "They went to work, made money, and bought gardenias for their kitchens. We found we were living the same way, and it worried us. We wondered why we were becoming citizens of a country that seemed to lack a common purpose."
Then they say this, and it is what I wish most to bring to your attention.
. . . Stalin, exploiting the taboo against meshchanstvo, kept exhorting his subjects to make the regime their life . . . we were assured that by living for the government we were living for a common purpose, the building of socialism," Igor said. "We looked on the hardships Stalin imposed on us as idealistic sacrifices that were helping to make a better life for the whole Russian people."
I mention that, Mr. Speaker, to show that notwithstanding the fact that this regime appears to us so perverted or diabolical-use any other strong adjective you may think of -many people living there act with a certain devotion to it, and act with the feeling that they are on a kind of crusade.
I also wish to add another interesting thing. These Russians were attracted by one feature of the New York life. They went to Columbus Circle, which I understand is the New York Hyde Park. There they found people freely debating, and that did impress them. They felt that was a good thing, something they never had before. The point I wish to stress, Mr. Speaker, is that when we are considering the problem here, the struggle that faces us, I do not think we should for one minute allow ourselves to believe that there is not an enthusiasm on the other' side of the iron curtain which we have to meet.

I sum up by saying we have the economic, the military, the police safeguards, and they are all important. But most important to me is, can we find in ourselves an enthusiasm for our way of life equal to the enthusiasm that they have? Up to the present, we have exerted ourselves. We are taking tremendous steps to provide defence. We are doing all those things. But there is just one other thing. We should be conscious of the things that really make up our way of life, and we should be alert to cherish and defend them, not only in war but-something which is just as important and far more difficult-in times of peace.


Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, on March 21 last my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), made quite clear in this house the social credit position with respect to Korea, Formosa, China and NATO both in its military and its economic aspects. On March 21 the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) re-emphasized our position with respect . to those matters, but he placed particular emphasis upon Canada in relation to article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. Nothing which has occurred since March 21 and nothing which has been said since March 21 has caused us to alter our views in any respect whatsoever. It will therefore be quite unnecessary for me to retread much of the ground which those two hon. members covered in the course of their observations. Almost immediately prior to the time that my colleague, the hon. member for Acadia, rose to speak, the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) moved the following amendment:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out, and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty."
The hon. member for Melfort then deemed it advisable to read that article which I shall do again at this time. It reads as follows:
The parties will contribute towards the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Before dealing with that amendment, Mr. Speaker, there is something which I again wish to make abundantly clear. We support the military objectives of NATO. The hon, member for Peace River on March 21 had 55704-66
Supply-External Affairs this to say in relation thereto, as reported at page 693 of Hansard and I quote:
We support the military objectives as they were made somewhat more clear by the minister this afternoon,-
And I could insert at that point "and again this afternoon",,	-	.
-but we do object strenuously to what appears to be, in all too many quarters, only a half-hearted effort to make ready to successfully defend the free Atlantic nations against an aggressor or combination of aggressors.
The hon. member for Acadia, dealing with that theme, said this, and I quote again briefly from Hansard of March 25, page 774:
But, on the other hand, just so long as the U.S.S.R. have armaments far greater than our own, and. so long as they continue to expand those arms, I believe, we are bound to do the same. I cannot see any chance of doing otherwise.
Those two extracts should leave no doubt whatsoever in the mind of anyone with respect to our attitude in connection with those military objectives. Certainly we realize the importance of those military objectives. None of us knows what new or sinister move communism may make at any time. They are not in the habit of forewarning us. We believe, however-we are convinced, as a matter of fact-that the growing power and unity of the western world will undoubtedly prove the strongest deterrent to communist aggression. On the other hand, of course, we are not unmindful of the fact that it may also precipitate a desperate effort on their part to catch us, as it were, with our defences down.
We in this group have always taken the position, ever since we first came to this House of Commons, that Canada must be strong both economically and militarily. It is logical therefore to say that if Canada belongs to an organization such as NATO, it is essential that we not only be strong but that we be strong as a partner in that organization. We have always taken the position that every effort should be made to prepare us for any emergency that may come upon us at any time.
Prior to the commencement of the last war, our membership in this house constantly and repeatedly urged upon the house the necessity for stronger defences. When war was forced upon us, no group in this house took a stronger position in support of an all-out effort in order to achieve a successful termination of hostilities. When NATO was conceived, we supported it. We supported Canada's membership in that organization, and ever since then we have supported it. I repeat that we have supported and now support the military objectives of that organization. We also support the objectives set
1034	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs forth in article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot agree that Canada has taken the most effective steps which Canada is capable of taking to assist in fully implementing article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) quoted a long list of figures-I believe he went back to 1945 -indicating Canada's contribution in one form or another. Unquestionably those figures were imposing. But I am not so much concerned about those mere figures by themselves as I am concerned about those figures in relation to what we know Canada is capable of doing. Therein lies the test. It was with respect to what we consider to be Canada's failure to play its full part under article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty that my two colleagues had much to say. But, Mr. Speaker, just let me make something else perfectly clear at this time. In our attitude towards this amendment we want it clearly and definitely understood that were we to support it-and that is exactly what we intend to do-we would not be departing in any sense whatsoever from our support of the military objectives of NATO. Nor does that support involve necessarily the acceptance of the C.C.F. policy as it was, as it is, or as It may be, in relation to military objectives.
I have laid our own position clearly before the house, but it is with respect to article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty that we are concerned with this amendment, and only in relation thereto, although we are not unmindful of the fact that what we do under article 2 must of necessity play an extremely important part in connection with what we are able to do so far as military objectives are concerned.
When speaking on March 21, my leader, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low), stated, as reported at page 694 of Hansard:
We think that every effort will have to be made to cushion our economy against the terrible impact of defence and other demands that are being made upon it. That statement holds true. I suppose, for other nations in the world, particularly those that are within the NATO group. We think that care will have to be exercised to see to it that we do not destroy productive incentive-that is, the incentive to produce in an all-out fashion- within our own country, by imposing on our people heavy taxation that they just cannot bear. There is no necessity for it. It can be financed in other ways. We ought to induce all-out productive effort by every good policy that can be laid down.
May I just leave the quotation at that point, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that we do charge that the government has not laid down every good policy that could be laid down with respect to all-out production. All one has to do is to look about him. One of


the colossal tragedies, so far as I am concerned, is that today within our own nation we find such uncertainty, more particularly in the field of agricultural production. My colleague pointed out the advice that had been given to Canadian farmers by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and by the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. They did tell them that in the absence of markets it would be foolish to go on and expand certain lines of agricultural production. When one balances, or tries to balance, that against conditions which prevail in some of those countries which are members of the North Atlantic treaty group, then it almost makes tears come to one's eyes.	When one stops to
realize that that situation prevails at a time when so many of our fellow members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are finding it necessary to divert such a substantial part of their production to military preparedness under NATO, when one stops to realize what we can do to enable these countries which are experiencing such difficulties from the local economic point of view, then one wonders what sanity there can be in our failure to lay down every good policy which could induce all-out production.
The hon. member for Peace River concluded that observation with these words:
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that therein lies a realm for some serious criticism of this government. They are not offering the proper inducement to all-out production, especially of foods; and foods are a vital necessity in this war against communism.
I was reading only within the last two or three days that certain of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization find it necessary today to divert from 35 per cent to 45 per cent of their complete productive efforts toward the meeting of their military obligations alone under NATO.
This afternoon, in reference to article 2, the minister laid particular emphasis upon the fact that that article was designed in part to eliminate conflict in their-and that is the countries under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-international economic policies which will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them. Well, now, how the minister can reconcile his assertion and what we are presumed to do in carrying out our part under that article with what occurred when Britain was put in a position where convertibility was demanded, and thereby had to cut back very substantially on imports from Canada, and in the light of what transpired in Britain at the time the finance ministers met-how that can be reconciled with what article 2 calls upon us to do, is more than I can understand.


Mr. Blackmore:: And more than the
minister understands, too.


Frederick Davis Shaw: When referring to that, the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) had this to say on March 25, 1952, as reported at page 776 of Hansard:
What does the Canadian government propose to do at the present time to meet the situation that
1	have referred to, namely, the need for helping those nations in NATO to cushion their economies against these great defence expenditures? I was quite concerned when I read a statement, apparently made by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in which he subscribed to the policy of helping Britain make sterling convertible. It was his opinion, apparently, that convertibility should be achieved just as rapidly as possible, and therefore he supported Britain and other nations in restricting their imports from the dollar area. In my opinion, if at a time like this when those nations are having tremendous difficulty in meeting their obligations under the defence program, on top of that we still further aggravate their problems by trying to insist that they restore convertibility, then we will be sabotaging the war effort just in exactly the same way that we sabotaged our defence effort prior to 1939, when we permitted our industries to operate only 50 per cent of their capacity.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, when I read article
2	and I hear what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said this afternoon, and when I turn over in my mind what was done in the field of forced convertibility, then I say, how in the world can we do other than support the amendment?
I had not intended taking that much time, Mr. Speaker, but let me just for emphasis sake recapitulate briefly.
I stated at the beginning that we support the military objectives under NATO. We have no quarrel with the objectives as set forth in article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. But we do take very strong exception to this government's action-and I will say action, as well as lack of action-in carrying out its responsibilities, or what we deem to be its responsibilities, under that agreement.
If as a consequence of Canada's failing to maintain an optimum of production, if as a consequence of Canada's failing to make available to other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, under whatever terms required, those commodities we can supply to them, without to any great extent reducing our own standard of living-I say that if, as a consequence of that, certain of these countries which today are bearing a disproportionate share of defence and may as a result suffer economic collapse, what is our alibi to be?
I shudder to think in terms of some of those countries collapsing economically under the disproportionate military burden they are called upon to bear. I trust that may never occur. But a great responsibility rests 55704-66i
Supply-External Affairs upon us to see that it does not occur. I say the answer rests with us, and with the United States of America.
It is logical then for me to conclude by repeating that we are supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).


Mr. G. F. Higgins (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully this afternoon and this evening, and I realize that the debate has been of a very high tone, indeed. Let me say at the outset that I do not expect to continue in this tone, because I am entering the debate with a very specific purpose in mind.
Some two years ago I reminded hon. members of an anniversary, and I remind them again this evening of another one: the anniversary of the entry of Newfoundland into confederation. There has been debate as to whether it was April 1 or March 31 but, for the purposes I have this evening, I would prefer to call it March 31, because of the particular connotations apt to be associated with the first day of April, and the connection of that date with the remarks I have to make this evening.
As was remarked during the original debate in 1948 with respect to the entry of Newfoundland, it was an unusual thing in the world today to see the amalgamation of two sovereign countries, as these two countries were. Because, while Newfoundland was a small country, it was nevertheless a sovereign country. And to see two sovereign countries amalgamate, as did Newfoundland and Canada, following a plebiscite, was something strange and new in the world we know today. I say that because I am sure it must have caused amazement in many parts of the world.
As has been said many times before, since representatives from Newfoundland have come to Ottawa they have been received with every courtesy and, I am sure, have been regarded by all members as equals. Certainly from no one either in the house or outside of it has there ever been any suggestion of our being inbred half-wits; and it is to a slander of this kind I am taking grave exception this evening. It is for the purpose of discussing this matter that I am availing myself of the opportunity afforded by this debate.
May I preface my remarks by saying that St. John's, Newfoundland, was a settled city when the Indians were still running around New York. And I say that so that hon. members will understand, as I know they all do, that we are not Johnny-come-latelies in this world.
1036	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
The sun crossed the line on March 20, and a gentleman known as Robert Rutherford McCormick crossed Newfoundland on the same date. The crossing of the line usually brings storms-and in this instance a very fine storm was kicked up by Colonel Robert McCormick. The colonel, as hon. members know, is very definitely known for his antiBritish sentiments; and of course this time the sentiments he voiced were against what was known as Britain's oldest colony, and now Canada's newest province.
Because of being delayed at Gander airport for a matter of four and a half hours while on a twenty-thousand mile tour, a world *tour he was taking in his private plane-a private plane, by the way, known as the Chicago Tribune-he slandered the people of Newfoundland in a most disgusting fashion. The slander was written very obviously by the colonel himself. I am referring to this at length because, as I say, this newspaper, this Chicago Daily Tribune has a very wide circulation indeed. I assume by the wishes of the colonel himself, it is called the greatest newspaper in the world. It has a circulation of 1 million daily, with 1,500,000 on Sunday. Its press services are sold to twenty major dailies with a combined circulation of 7,500,000 daily. It is very easy to see how slanders, such as the one to which I am now referring, can be widely disseminated, as this one was.
It is' Very well understood also that the managing editor is told by Colonel McCormick how the news in the paper is to be slanted. The delay, I understand, caused to the colonel was as a result of vigorous customs examination at Gander. The reason for that customs examination I cannot say; the Minister of National Revenue said he was going to make a statement after he had made an inquiry. There may have been a good reason for it.
The article in question, at page 3 of the Chicago Daily Tribune of March 20, is headed "Col. McCormick At Baie Comeau; Home Tomorrow". Then it goes on to say, "Inspects new Tribune power dam." Following is a map showing his journey. The text of the article states:
Col. McCormick and his party will return to Chicago Friday. He will resume in person his broadcasts on the Saturday night Theater of the Air on WGN, WGNB, and the Mutual Broadcasting system.
The plane Chicago Tribune arrived1 here after a 1,350 mile flight from the Azores to Newfoundland and a 450-mile flight from Gander, Newfoundland.
The quotation now is from Colonel McCormick:
"Our transoceanic hegira has come to an end," Col. McCormick said. "We were detained at Gander four and a half hours by the moronic customs officers and torpid baggage handlers and


another half hour on the runway by a flyer with engine trouble. The lunatic has gone off in this dangerous weather with a defective engine."
Then, the part to which I object particularly, apart from the moronic customs officers and the torpid baggage handlers, is this:
"We were told to excuse them because Newfoundlanders are so inbred as to be half-witted. That does not help our tired crew whose planned1 twelve hours flight has been lengthened to seventeen hours or give us back the day we must lay over to rest them.
If I again resume my travels they will not include Newfoundland."
Colonel McCormick and his party had stopped in over two dozen airports in Central and South America, Central and North. Africa, Malta, Italy, and France and had met with universal courtesy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: I have been listening attentively to the hon. member while he has been speaking for the past six minutes. I must remind him that what is before the house at the moment is an amendment to the main motion that Mr. Speaker leave the chair. That amendment states regret that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve an implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
I have waited for the hon. member to come to the subject matter that is now before the house. I have given him a chance to preface his remarks and then bring them within the confines of the subject matter now before us. I would refer him to citation 469 of Beauchesne's third edition which reads:
When an amendment has been moved to the question for the Speaker to leave the chair, discussion should be properly confined to its subject matter.
If the hon. member does not intend to deal with the subject matter of the amendment he should wait until that amendment has been disposed of. Then if a discussion is not carried on on external affairs, he may initiate discussion of another subject. Perhaps I should also read citation 468, which is as follows:
It sometimes happens, on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair for committee of supply, that members air grievances without moving amendments. A member may speak on railway rates, another on naturalization, and so on.
I would remind the hon. member that if a debate on railway rates is started and then someone else begins to speak on naturalization, no hon. member can then come back to a discussion of railroad rates. In conjunction with that citation one must also read citation 469, which I have just quoted and which is to the effect that if an amendment is moved, the discussion must be confined to its subject matter.
The hon. member will be in order if he deals with the economic sections of the treaty. I have waited until this minute in order to

give him a chance to indicate that he was going to discuss the subject matter of the amendment. Since he has not done so, I think he is out of order.


Gordon Francis Higgins: I am afraid I am going to be out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Beaudoin):: Then I shall have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat at this time.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point in the debate to lend my support to the amendment moved the other day by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) on the motion to go into supply. I rise not because I agree with all that has been said in this debate, either by the mover of the amendment or by the minister in his reply, but because it does afford me an opportunity to place before the house my views in respect to Canada's position in rendering economic aid to other less fortunate countries as far as NATO is concerned. To make myself clear and to make my speech read as logically as I want it to read, may I quote once again the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort, which was:
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out. and the following words be substituted therefor:
"this house regrets that the government has failed to take effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty."
The hon. member who moved the amendment thought it wise to read articles 2 and 3 of the North Atlantic treaty, which I think are paramount to the discussion. They read:
2.	The parties will contribute towards the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
3.	In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective selfhelp and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
Previous speakers from the Social Credit party in this house have stated already our particular position in respect to NATO. We have supported at all times the general principles of NATO. While NATO means the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we must not overlook the fact that after all it is a defence treaty. While we pull no punches in advocating that the defensive provisions of that treaty be kept up to par, at the same time we believe that NATO must provide as far as it is possible to do so all the economic aid possible to put some of the other members
Supply-External Affairs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on their feet. For that reason we believe that we can play a bigger part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization than perhaps we have played in the past.
I should like to make particular reference to the plight of Great Britain in these days. Great Britain is one of the partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I believe that we can do immeasurably more in assisting Great Britain economically in these days than we are doing. It was my privilege last January to be in England for a short space of time, and observe at close range the reaction of the British people to the program of austerity.
I was privileged to be chosen as one of the parliamentary advisers to the Canadian delegation to the last meeting of the UN in Paris. I wish to thank the minister and those in charge for that privilege. It was indeed an education in itself. I shall have more to say about it on other occasions, but this evening I want to place some emphasis on the possibility of rendering greater and more specific economic aid to one of the partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; that is Great Britain.
It was my privilege to be in Great Britain at the time of the king's death and until his burial. I travelled a little while I was there, and I believe I was able to get the reaction of the British people to the monarchy, to discover or diagnose, shall I say, that great British spirit I had always known existed because I had been told so, because I had read about it in literature and in history, but which I am afraid I had never experienced through personal contact. I was born in England many years ago, but it was forty-eight years since I had been there, so you may realize that I was only a child when I left Great Britain. My actual knowledge of the British people was gained largely from conversation with others and by reading, particularly history and current events involving Great Britain.
Of course one place I visited there was the offices of the empire parliamentary association. When I went there they said, "It is too bad you had to come at such a time as this. England is plunged into sorrow." Well, I was glad I had the privilege of being there in those days because I witnessed some things then I might never witness again. The secretary of the association asked if I would like to see the lying in state. I said I would, but I wanted him to understand that while I was as loyal to the crown as anyone could be I was not going to stand in line for four, six or eight hours in order to do so. He replied, "Oh, you will not have to do that.

Supply*-External Affairs in order to cause the complete economic collapse of Great Britain.
I shall now conclude, Mr. Speaker. The only permanent solution that I can see is to revitalize the British commonwealth of nations and to come to the assistance of Great Britain. Throughout time she has been regarded as the mother country of the British commonwealth. I say that the only permanent solution that I can see is to come to her assistance with outright gifts of the surpluses that we are able to produce, and to give them to her from our vast productive storehouse. I know, of course, that NATO does not provide directly for this particular suggestion which I have made; "not directly" are the words I used. It provides for it if all the members of the North Atlantic treaty nations come together and decide upon it. If they can do that, all well and good. But if they cannot I urge that, even though we must go outside NATO to accomplish it, we should do so.
Great Britain's future today lies in the balance. We can come to her assistance, bring her back to her feet and keep her there because of what she means in the entire world picture as one of the great freedom-loving nations of the world. If we do not do that, I must say that the picture looks dark indeed for Great Britain. I believe that is one of the imperative duties, something that cannot be overlooked, in this North Atlantic Treaty Organization. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I rose to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, one speaking on our external affairs at this time can hardly do so without talking to some extent of the NATO Lisbon statement. In doing that, however, I do not intend to enter into the vendetta which has gone on in this debate-and which has taken up a considerable amount of time in it-between the members of the Liberal and C.C.F. parties as to whether certain statements were irresponsible and disastrous or as to which of their parties can be more properly linked to the communist line or party. That argument has enlivened this debate but it has not contributed much to an intelligent appraisal of our foreign policy.
The Lisbon statement which has been referred to so frequently, as quoted by the minister at page 389 of Hansard-and I really hesitate to put this on the record again- states:
NATO nations agreed to provide approximately 50 divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness and 4,000 operational aircraft in western Europe, as well as strong naval forces. It further


provided a definite program for taking measures this year necessary to increase the defensive power of NATO in following years.
In commenting on that, the minister said, amongst other things, as reported at page 389 of Hansard:
I take no great pride in that language. Indeed I think it justifies some of the criticism levelled at it.
Again this afternoon the minister said that the language was ambiguous. In elaborating on the statement in his speech earlier in this debate, namely on March 21, as reported at page 668 of Hansard he quoted a statement of Mr. Lovett of the United States defence department which explains that half of the 50 divisions mentioned in this Lisbon statement were reserve divisions which, however, could be mobilized in a few days and which, according to Mr. Lovett's statement-of which I think perhaps I better read a small part-were almost as good as active full-time divisions. I should just like to read from the statement of Mr. Lovett which the minister put on record at page 669 of Hansard:
A division of this type-
That is, of these continental reserve divisions.
-which can be mobilized in twenty-four to seventy-two hours is almost as ready for action as is the front line division maintained at full strength.
In supporting what he said on March 21, the minister this afternoon quoted General Gruenther, I believe it was, and read quite a long statement which he had made in connection with those reserve divisions. I listened to that quotation carefully and I do not think anything in that statement bolstered this statement of Mr. Lovett that divisions of this sort are almost as ready for action as in a front line division. As a matter of fact, I think that statement that divisions of this sort are almost as ready for front line action as is a regular division which is in training all the time would be questioned by any responsible military leader. As a matter of fact, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), in a debate we had last year, argued that such was the case. In talking about our own reserve forces, his argument was to the effect that what was needed was forces in training all the time, which could go into action immediately, not ones which were going to take some considerable time to mobilize. As a matter of fact, to be in an efficient state to fight, anyone with any military experience knows, I think, that a division has to be in constant training. The staff and commanders have to work as one, have got to know one another; the officers have to know their men and work with them constantly in order to do that.

A division such as one of those reserve divisions which the minister has mentioned just cannot be mobilized in twenty-four or seventy-two hours and put up an effective fight. I do not think there is any argument about that at all. The reason I mention that is that statements such as the one which was issued at Lisbon, and statements such as the one made by Mr. Lovett are dangerous, because they give our own people a false sense of security. As the London Times has said, they knew that what was put out in these statements at Lisbon was not going to fool the Russians in the slightest. None of these statements fooled the Russians but they fooled a large number of our own people, and they are dangerous because of that. The Lisbon statement, I would suspect, must be, or might be, due to the influence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) because it bears a rather curious resemblance to a large number of statements on defence which we have had over the past three or four years in this house, statements which paint an extremely rosy picture, but when you come to examine into them very closely the facts do not bear out that rosy picture.


Brooke Claxton: What statements?


Douglas Scott Harkness: As the Minister of National Defence knows, I have attacked these various statements of his very frequently right here in this house, and it would be quite easy-


Brooke Claxton: It may be an assertion made by the hon. member quite frequently.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -to turn up the record and see that that is a fact.
It seems to me a great deal of the discussion which has been going on both here and in other places in regard to the number of divisions, aeroplanes, naval forces and so forth, which the economy of the western world can support without undue strain, has not been based on a sense of reality or a sense of history. I would remind you, sir, that during the last war the Germans had over 300 divisions under arms at one time, divisions ranging in size from panzer divisions of 22,000 men, approximately, to reserve divisions of about 8,000 men: in other words, divisions on the whole larger in size than most of the fifty which are mentioned. They supported a large number of these divisions in a full state of readiness for some years before the war, and then during those years of a very devastating war kept them supported. At the present time, Russia, according to the best estimates, has upwards of 300 divisions under arms. Those two facts which I have just mentioned, what Germany did in the
Supply-External Affairs last war, and what Russia has under arms or in the way of divisions at the present time, should not be forgotten. In view of these facts, can anyone seriously believe that the western world, with reserves of manpower many times that of wartime Germany or present-day Russia, cannot support fifty divisions by the end of this year and 100 divisions by the end of 1954, together with the appropriate air and naval forces? I do not think there is any question that from the material point of view, from the economic point of view, that number of divisions could be supported by the western world without undue strain.
The bars which stand in the way of these goals are not material or economic bars. They lie rather in a lack of will, a lack of willingness to make these sacrifices necessary to ensure our continued freedom. What is needed most, I think, in the western world is a stiffening of morale. As a matter of fact, 300 divisions at the present time facing the Russians in western Europe would not do us much good unless those divisions had the will to fight. What it seems to me is lacking, as far as a lot of people in the western world are concerned, is the will to fight, and the will to get ready to fight.
I agree that a certain amount of economic aid may increase that morale, that will to fight. I think there is no question that giving more food, more washing machines and more of everything to the people of western Europe, will help to stop the spread of communism. However, I should like to point out at the same time that the communists we have had in this country and the people who organize communism in other countries do not ordinarily, or in most cases, do so as a result of empty bellies. A lot have their bellies filled for them, but the people who organize them are not of that kind. The people who went on trial in this, country as a result of the espionage activities that went on here illustrate that fact. None of them was of the hungry type, unless perhaps they were hungry for power.
I was quite interested in what the minister had to say in regard to the share that Canada is to take in those NATO goals. He stated that our contribution was one brigade group and twelve squadrons. One brigade group is one fiftieth of the fifty divisions which is the goal for this year, and if it is a hundred divisions, which is the goal for 1954, about which there is some doubt-it may be more, it may be less-if it were one hundred, then our brigade group would be 1/300 of that. The twelve squadrons would constitute approximately 250 aircraft in operation, with an equal number in reserve to support them, not a very large proportion of the 4,000 to be

Supply-External Affairs ready by the end of this year, and ours are not to be ready then but by the end of 1954.
I cannot help but wonder whether that is all that NATO has asked us to provide. It seems a remarkably small contribution, considering the economy of this country and the reserves we have. The minister said of course that that was our full contribution. In addition to that, I presume the contributions that we are making in the way of air training are taken into account. I believe he did say something about this terrible word "infrastructure"; that we were to have some part in that. The radar screen which we are to have in the northern part of this country is probably also a contribution. These things may be considered a balancing-off; I do not know. But it would seem to me that if that were the case perhaps a little more emphasis should be put on these things rather than just mentioning one brigade and twelve squadrons.
As far as Formosa is concerned, the statement made by the minister this afternoon was much more satisfactory than anything that he had said before. The discussions which have gone on in this house to quite an extent, I think, were as much divorced from reality as the statements I have referred to. From the point of view of Formosa, one of the speakers in the debate, I think it was an hon. member from Newfoundland, pointed out that there is a population of some eight million people on that island. There is no doubt that people in this house and elsewhere have been talking of handing over Formosa and these eight million people as though those people had nothing whatever to say about it. The minister did bring that into his statement this afternoon, which I was glad to hear, and said that consideration ought to be given to the wishes of these people, which I think is a primary matter as far as Formosa is concerned, as to what the people living there themselves want, and the form of government, whether they want to go with red China or want to get out of the clutches of red China. It seems to me not nearly enough attention has been paid to that up to date.
From the purely military point of view I do not think there is any question that it is just nonsense to hand over an important and strategic island like Formosa to our enemies. I would hope that so long as the possibility of a general war with the communist world threatens us, nothing by way of appeasement of that sort would be contemplated.
There has been in the discussion reference to rearmament of Germany. There still

appears to be a considerable amount of reluctance on the part of many people to rearm Germany. That, again, I think is a refusal to face up to realities. I was the first in the house some two or three years ago to point out that the only way in which an effective defence of western Europe could be built up was to make use of the manpower and the fighting ability of western Germany. Since that time I have been glad to see that, generally speaking, that idea has been accepted by the peoples of the western world, and by NATO, and that what might be called specific means of obtaining that end have been in process of being worked out.
I would hope that Canada would do everything within her power to ensure that western Germany is rearmed, and that their forces become part of the NATO forces, or work in conjunction with them, just as rapidly as possible. I do not think there is any possibility of stopping any Russian thrust which may take place in western Europe unless that is done.


Some hon. Members:: Question.	-


John Horne Blackmore: If it is the desire of the house, we could call it eleven o'clock. If not, I am prepared to proceed now.


Some hon. Members:: Eleven o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue this debate. When it is concluded we will call three departments-external affairs, agriculture and transport. Then we will move to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee on external affairs. Then, if we have time, we will take up Bill No. 9 respecting the appointment of auditors for the national railways; Bill No. 63, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act. Then, if we still have time, we will take up the resolution in the name of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gregg) to amend the Government Employees Compensation Act,
1947.
Hon. members will see in Votes and Proceedings today a motion in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to suspend standing order 28 so that we may move to go into supply on Thursday to start the debate on national defence.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing orders.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 2, 1952