1952-03-27

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 42, for the relief of Pauline Augusta McCaskill Foulis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 43, for the relief of Hilda Avrith Grossman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 44, for the relief of Sarah Grossman Grotsky.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 45, for the relief of Rose Dorothy Weatherbee Stopps.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 46, for the relief of Nancy Jean Tolmie Dawson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 47, for the relief of Misha Pauno-vic.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 48, for the relief of Eva Ena Gue-nard Brassard.-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. 52, for the relief of Eileen Shirley Guttman Fagen.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 53, for the relief of Helen Myrtle Woods Poullos.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 54, for the relief of Karl Gunnar Tammi.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 55, for the relief of Peter Nicol Crowe.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 56, for the relief of Fred Jenne Fyles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 57, for the relief of Louisa Crawford Gordonsmith.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 58, for the relief of Rhoda Hayes Goulet.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 59, for the relief of Malfice Ciccone Nadeau.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Mary Rita Estella Brennan Henderson.-Mr. Winkler.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What was the total value of defence contracts over $10,000 awarded during (a) the last two weeks in January; (b) the month of February, 1952, and what was the total amount thereof awarded to companies in (i) Manitoba; (ii) Saskatchewan; (iii) Alberta?
2.	Of said defence contracts in each of the said periods, what was the total of such contracts for clothing?
3.	What are the names of the companies or individuals who received contracts for clothing in excess of $100,000 during each of said periods, and what were the respective amounts of each of said contracts?


Mr. Dickey:: I am tabling an answer to the main portion of this question, which is as follows:
1.	(a) $ 43,504,385.
(b) $134,204,871. (i), (ii), and (iii) to be answered verbally.
2.	(a) $ 9,326,590.
(b) $12,429,190.
3.	Contractors receiving contracts for clothing in excess of $100,000 are listed below:
(a)	During the last two weeks of January 1952:
Arkel Clothing Mfg. Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $701,709; Clayton and Sons Ltd., Halifax, N.S., $190,553; T. Eaton Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $449,379; J. Elkin Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $314,318; Empire Pants and Boys Wear Co., Toronto, Ont., $100,250; Evans Pants Inc., St. Hyacinthe, P.Q., $104,503; Fashion-Craft Mfgrs. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $462,400; Freedman Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $1,428,174; Master Craft Uniform Co. Reg'd., Quebec, P.Q., $635,472; Monarch Overall Mfg. Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., $285,500; National Textiles Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $100,951; Ritchie Farber and Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $833,984; Sainthill-Levine and Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $314,514; S. and G. Clothing Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $745,285; Shiff and Co. Inc., Montreal, P.Q., $298,723; Sterling Clothing Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $1,266,810; Strathcona Garment Mfg. Co., Montreal, P.Q., $835,927; Tip Top Tailors Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $1,356,838;
(b)	During the month of February 1952:
Aquascutum (Canada) Ltd., Montreal, P.Q.,
$145,950; Coppley Noyes and Randall Ltd., Hamilton, Ont., $175,900; Dominion Garment Co., Winnipeg, Man., $251,720; Dorothea Knitting Mills Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $291,810; T. Eaton Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $170,978; Grand'Mere Knitting Co. Ltd., Grand'Mere, P.Q., $256,353; Hanson Mills Ltd., Hull, P.Q., $142,884; Holden Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Ottawa, Ont., $211,064; Jacob Fashions Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., $300,473; Martcraft Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $260,760; McGregor Shirt Co. Ltd., Hamilton, Ont., $518,067; Midwest Garments Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., $341,640; Miller and Gable Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $198,600; Modern Waterproof Clothing Co., Montreal,
840	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry P.Q., $259,920; Monarch Overall Mfg. Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., $580,630; Natalie Knitting Mills, Whitby, Ont., $104,004; Northern Shirt Co. Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., $107,600; Peerless Garments Ltd., Winnipeg, Man., $286,239; St. Andrews Woollen Mills Ltd., St. Andrews East, P.Q., $192,893; Sainthill-Levine and Co. Ltd., Toronto, Ont., $534,600; Scott Leather Goods Co., Montreal, P.Q., $367,200; Shift and Co. Inc., Montreal, P.Q., $348,355; Sterling Clothing Co. Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., $415,072; C. Turnbull Co. Ltd., Galt, Ont., $173,559; Jack Victor Inc., Montreal, P.Q., $283,400.
And I should like to make a verbal answer with respect to the remainder, as follows: Questions similar in form to parts (i), (ii) and (iii) of this question have been asked in previous sessions, and it has been pointed out that the Department of Defence Production does not maintain records which would permit giving accurate figures in answer to this type of question. Full explanations have been given to the house dealing with this matter, and reference may be made to Hansard of the fourth session of the twenty-first parliament at pages 452 and 1131 and to Hansard of the fifth session of the twenty-first parliament, page 691.
Questions of this type cannot be accurately answered for the following reasons: (1) The records of the Department of Defence Production indicate only the mailing address provided by contractors when submitting tenders, which may or may not be in the province in which the contractor is located. (2) The Department of Defence Production has no record of the names or location of companies awarded subcontracts by prime-contractors.
Full information regarding the awarding of all contracts over $10,000 is made public by the publication every two weeks of complete lists of contracts awarded. This information is readily available to all hon. members.



REFORESTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. T. Applewhaite (Skeena):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Will the minister table the forestry agreement with the province of British Columbia, to which he referred in this house on Tuesday, March 25?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: I shall be
very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Dickey.1



FISCAL POLICIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. Fulford (Leeds):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Has the minister seen a news item in today's Montreal Gazette under a San Francisco dateline in which a prominent American banker refers to Canada's fiscal policy in the most laudatory terms? Has the minister any comments to make?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I have seen it, Mr. Speaker. It just demonstrates the fact that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country.


Mr. Graydon:: I like the minister's suggestion that he is without honour in his own country, although perhaps that may not be unanimous.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Graydon: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he can give the house any information with respect to a proposed meeting of provincial ministers of agriculture which I understand is being called next week. First of all, have notices gone out calling the ministers in, and, second, what will be on the agenda of that meeting?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Notices have gone out calling a meeting on April 2 and 3. The discussions which take place there will be on questions of interest as between the federal government and the provinces in relation to difficulties that have arisen out of the foot-and-mouth disease epidemic.


Gordon Graydon: Will the minister indicate to the house whether the stabilization of beef prices will be one of the items on the agenda?


James Garfield Gardiner: Well, marketing conditions resulting from the existence of foot-and-mouth disease will be discussed.


Mr. Argue:: Is it the government's policy to stabilize beef prices during the period of the United States embargo, as the minister is reported to have stated to the Kiwanis club of Ottawa the day before yesterday?


James Garfield Gardiner: What I said to the Kiwanis club in Ottawa the day before yesterday was correct; but it was not necessarily what my hon. friend says it was.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am sorry, but I could not hear what the minister said.


An hon. Member:: Read it tomorrow in
Hansard.


Hazen Robert Argue: Then, on a question of privilege:
I think it is a well-known practice and an accepted custom that when ministers of the crown are making any statements while parliament is in session, those statements should be made in the house.


Mr. Drew:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt very much if that is a question of privilege.



LEGALITY OF PROVINCIAL EMBARGOES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. Ross Thatcher (Moose Jaw):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice. Has the minister considered the legality of the present provincial ban against livestock movement, and, if so, would he make a statement to the house?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: As yet we have had no occasion to consider the legality of the bans, because they have been under negotiation, as to their expediency, between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) and the various provincial ministers concerned.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: May I ask a supplementary question? What procedure is necessary to have the department consider the legality of these livestock bans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt if that is an urgent question.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I think it is very urgent.


Mr. St. Laurent:: Mr. Speaker does not agree with you.


Mr. Speaker:: It is an important question; but questions asked when the orders of the day are called must be urgent, and on important questions of public concern. There is a provision in our rules for putting questions to the ministry through the order paper. That is the usual procedure. There is no provision in our rules for asking oral questions of the ministry; however, it is a custom which has grown up.
Under our rules. questions are answered on two or three days of each week. As I said before, only urgent questions on important matters of public concern should be asked at this time. A question that can wait two or three days for an answer should not be asked. I sometimes feel that too much latitude is given in the asking of questions.
Inquiries of the Ministry All I can do is to ask members of the house to try to follow the established practice in respect to asking questions.


Wilbert Ross Thatcher: I thank you for your ruling, sir; but might I point out that thousands of cattle are not being moved in Canada today because-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: That is why I allowed the hon. member to ask his first question. Any question as to necessary procedure I think should appear on the order paper. I felt his first question was in order and I allowed it.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles Henry (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Resources and Development. Is he in a position to give information concerning the cost of producing and distributing the national film board release "Royal Journey"?


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any urgency in. that question? I think it should be placed on the order paper.



PRESS REPORT AS TO MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron Norih):: I should like to ask a further question of the Minister of Agriculture, which has to do with an article in the Toronto Daily Star of March 25, where the minister is reported to have said that it was government policy to put hogs to grass in the summer and not to have them marketed until such time as a suitable market could be found for them.


James Garfield Gardiner: I did not say that; that is all I have to say. And I did not know they put hogs to grass, in any considerable numbers.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth):: should like to ask a question of the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister seen the press statement to the effect that the Nova Scotia government is giving full consideration to the plight of the Nova Scotia fishermen, and that the Nova Scotia and federal governments are carrying on negotiations with regard to the matter? If so, will the minister tell the

Inquiries of the Ministry house what representations have been made by the Nova Scotia government, and what is the result to date of such negotiations?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: would say in reply to the first part of the question asked by the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth that I have seen the press dispatch to which reference is made.
In reply to the second part of the hon. member's question I would say that there have been informal and unofficial correspondence and telephone conversations between the minister of trade and industry in Nova Scotia and some of the federal ministers. There has also been a telegram from the minister of trade and industry in Nova Scotia to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Mayhew). However there has been no formal proposal from Nova Scotia.



LAKE ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Is the government planning to send an engineer to investigate the damage done by erosion and flooding to the Toronto islands and eastern beaches so as to determine what can be done to prevent further damage to this vital part of the St. Lawrence seaway? I might add that my anxiety in this regard is shared by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris).


Mr. Fleming:: And for Eglinton.


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: I am even expecting a visit from His Worship the Mayor of Toronto next Thursday to discuss this matter. We have sent our engineer up there. My trouble is that I do not want to get into some project over which we have no jurisdiction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: You don't want to get into deep water.


Alphonse Fournier: After discussing it with the municipal authorities I shall be ready to make a report to the house.


Gordon Graydon: The minister told me on Monday last that an engineer or departmental official was to go to investigate the erosion on the Canadian shores of lake Ontario. Has he gone yet? May I suggest to the minister that he should not confine his investigations to the city of Toronto. The county of Peel has had trouble, too.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am sure of that.
[Mr. Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth) J


Alphonse Fournier: This is a little more embarrassing, because I do not know whether my engineer is there right now. I have not received a report. But in taking up the Toronto situation I will include the Peel situation.



RED RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. Sinnott (Springfield):: May I ask
a supplementary question? Has the minister considered erosion of the banks of the Red river?


Alphonse Fournier: We are considering the erosion of nearly every river bank in the country right now.


Mr. Knowles:: What about the erosion of the Liberal party?


An hon. Member:: Don't worry about that.


Alphonse Fournier: In seventeen years we have tried to prevent that erosion, and we have had success up till now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Call the by-elections, then.


Alphonse Fournier: I understand these questions of flooding and erosion throughout the country are urgent for those who suffer damage. I happen to come from a riding where perhaps we are suffering more than they are in Toronto.


Donald Methuen Fleming: No, no.


Alphonse Fournier: Well, perhaps I feel that way because I live there. On the other hand, though I sympathize with every case, I am limited by the estimates I am given by the House of Commons, and by the jurisdiction of this government. Really, if I could do all the work this year, I would; but I am afraid I shall not be able to undertake all those projects this year.



REPORT OF DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: In connection with flooding, may I ask the Minister of Resources and Development if the report of the international joint commission on ways and means of coping with the danger of flooding in the Red river area will soon be available?


Robert Henry Winters: The report, in the first instance, at any rate, will not be a report of the international joint commission. It will be a report of the Department of Resources and Development, which is the government department co-ordinating work

connected with investigations on the Red river. The answer is that the report has not yet been prepared.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of representations made yesterday to the federal government by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, will the minister reconsider the question of establishing at this session a special committee on health insurance?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: My hon. friend knows that the government gives careful consideration to every representation that is made to it. But my hon. friend also knows equally well that .there is nothing further that I can add to what I already said on the second day of this session. I would advise my hon. friend that what I said related to the state of the health survey and the sickness survey, which are still in the incomplete stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question? Is the minister aware of the fact that the Saskatchewan health survey report, which is being released today, recommends a national health insurance program? If so, why does his press release about this report ignore that recommendation?


Mr. Marlin:: The minister is well aware of many things recommended in Saskatchewan, but he, himself, has to judge as to the validity of those recommendations.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if I might ask the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has an answer to the question I asked two days ago and which he said he would try to bring down yesterday.


Mr. Jean Lesage (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to get up a number of times but the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has been on his feet all the time. The hon. member's question had to do with the technical co-operation program of the Colombo plan.
55704-54J
External Affairs
The original allocation of $400,000 for the fiscal year 1950-51 was voted on June 30, 1950, in the further supplementary estimates of that year to provide for Canadian participation in the technical assistance program to June 30, 1951.
The greater part of this first year was necessarily taken up in assessing the requirements and setting up facilities to handle the program. Agreement to set up the council for technical co-operation in Colombo was reached only at the consultative committee meetings in London in September, 1950. This was followed by the organization of our own technical co-operation service in the Department of Trade and Commerce.
On the other hand, it was necessary for the Asian countries to formulate their specific requirements and to set up machinery to handle the operation of the program in their own countries. For these reasons only $5,581.50 of the $400,000 vote was used before the close of the fiscal year.
Of the $400,000 voted for the current fiscal year of 1951-52 the actual expenditures to date are $225,557.75; the outstanding accounts for payment during this fiscal year amount to $44,913.68, making a total of $270,471.43.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard the answer to the question I am at a loss to understand why I allowed the question to be asked.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is relevant to the debate now in progress, Mr. Speaker.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Wright.
Mr. W. J. Browne (SI. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, before the house adjourned on Tuesday evening I was reviewing some remarks that had been made in this debate on external affairs by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and was drawing the attention of the house especially to the latter part of the hon. member's remarks to be found on page 690 of Hansard. I now wish to refer to that portion of his speech in which the hon. member said that he knew it was a bit risky to discuss Far Eastern questions and then went on to make reference to Owen Lattimore in the United States. During the course of that debate I stated that I had heard of Owen Lattimore long before I had heard of Senator McCarthy, and the impression I had of Owen Lattimore was that he was a fellow traveller and that his writings leaned to the left.

External Affairs
Since Tuesday evening I have found an article in the China Monthly, published in New York in October, 1948, in which there is a review of two books published by two men who had been sent to China by the United States government during the years following the conclusion of the war with Japan. These two books are "The Stilwell Papers", which contains the memoirs of General Stilwell as edited by Theodore White, and "The United States and China", by John King Fairbank. This article by Alfred Kohl-berg is illustrated, and the first picture I see is a picture of Owen Lattimore sitting down with Chiang Kai-shek in Chungking. The author of this article is also the publisher of a magazine called Plain Talk and chairman of the American China Policy Association, I quote from this article as follows:
Early in 1943, Lattimore wrote of the generalissimo . we have in Asia a world statesman, a real genius in Chiang Kai-shek. What may be called the functional test of the historical importance of Chiang Kai-shek is the fact that throughout an already long political career, he has grown steadily greater and greater." The following year, after orders from Moscow to switch, Lattimore switched his opinions to suit.


An hon. Member:: That is by Kohlberg.


William Joseph Browne: This is the article by Kohlberg. Later in the article Lattimore is named as being associated with Alger Hiss, Lauchlin Currie, Edgar Snow and John Carter Vincent who had planned to slowly choke to death and destroy the government of the republic of China and build up the Chinese communists for post-war success.
I feel that Chiang Kai-shek needs no defence in this house, or indeed in America. Chiang Kai-shek was the head of one of the many nations that we considered as being united nations during world war II. His military record and speeches are there for anyone to investigate. He was a loyal ally. I think it is a disgrace for us not only to have deserted him in his hour of need but to malign him at the present time.
I am aware that in a general review such as was being given toy the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) he may be excused for making minor mistakes, but I do not think justice and truth should permit the gross mistakes that are to be found in his speech as reported on page 690. He stated, and I drew this to the attention of the house on Tuesday, that five years ago-that is in 1947-Owen Lattimore had warned' the country that Chiang Kai-shek was out and that the Chinese people would have nothing further to do with him.
The hon. gentleman knows full well that there have been volumes written on United

States-Chinese negotiations and there is certainly a very strong case to be made out that China was deserted by the United States and that United States officials who visited China interfered with the war effort of Chiang Kai-shek and brought about a result which led to the Chinese communist government taking over that country.


Mr. Coldwell:: They provided him with arms.


William Joseph Browne: I know the hon. gentleman said that they supplied him with billions of dollars' worth, but I challenge him to prove his statement by any documentary evidence. I have here an article that appeared in February, 1948, in Fortune called "The Tyrannous Decade." This goes at great length into relations between the United States and China. If the hon. member will read that and the other voluminous documents available I think he will find that, in the fight against Japan, China was a valuable ally. China was a valuable ally from the time Japan turned on the United States in December, 1941, until the time Russia entered the war one week before the war with Japan concluded.
Then from V-J day 1945, until September 1948, there was not a dollar's worth of aid sent by the United States to China to help Chiang Kai-shek. Naturally we could expect that when China was fighting Japan and at the time when the United States was fighting Japan, the United States would see to it that China was assisted in a fight in which they were both engaged; but Chinese sympathizers with Chiang Kai-shek are not slow to point out that prior to the attack at Pearl Harbor the United States was sending war materials to Japan, especially in the form of scrap, which enabled that country to build up its munitions supply.


An hon. Member:: So was Canada.


William Joseph Browne: So was
Canada, the hon. member says. I do not think that is anything for us to be proud of. In this same magazine there is a picture showing General Marshall, who is supposed to have said the same thing as Owen Lattimore about the Chinese nationalist government being useless, and General Marshall is standing with General Chang-Chun and General Chou En-lai of the Chinese communists. The caption on the picture is "Shotgun Marriage." General Marshall was sent out to China to force General Chiang Kai-shek into making an agreement with the communists. It was that agreement that helped to weaken General Chiang Kai-shek's military forces. The fact that Chiang Kai-shek did not get military aid in time.helped

to defeat the nationalist armies, and left us with the terrible situation we have there today.
Someone has said that it is a strange thing to see Germany, Italy and Japan, the three nations we were fighting in world war II, now riding on the crest of the wave and all soon to be our allies, while Poland, the country for whom we went to war, and China, our ally in the same world war II, are smothered by the communists. The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar I am sure has not forgotten that the Russians came into the war in the Pacific a week before it ended. They went into Manchuria, and would not allow the United States to enter.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: By agreement with Chiang Kai-shek.


William Joseph Browne: No, but by
agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt and Stalin at Yalta the year before. This agreement was made in February, 1945, at Yalta, and it was agreed that Russia was to get back all she had lost in the Russian-Japanese war of 1904. It was the greatest mistake ever made by any statesman, and the greatest miscalculation; because the week after the Russians entered the war, Japan capitulated. At that time military equipment owned by the Japanese armies in Manchuria, all that great storehouse of munitions, came into the possession of the Russians and was passed over by the Russians to the Chinese communists. Before the Russians entered the war there was not a Chinese communist in Manchuria; yet that great territory, the richest part of China, was immediately entered by the Chinese communists. They were armed with the equipment taken from the Japanese, and with other equipment given by the Russians, whereas, as I have already pointed out, Chiang Kai-shek, between V-J day and 1948, received no assistance whatever from the United States.
Instead of assistance, the nationalists received a great deal of embarrassment from some of the officials who were sent, including General Marshall. I do not say that when General Marshall went there he did not have good intentions. I say he was misled. We are all aware of the great controversy that has raged in the United States over the state department. It was a surprise to many people when North Korea invaded South Korea in June 1950 to find that the United States reversed its policy and went to the assistance of South Korea. They are still defending them against the attack of the North Koreans, trained by the Russians, and the Chinese communists who have been sent there by their Russian masters. The hon. member mentions billions of dollars being sent by
External Affairs
the United States to Chiang Kai-shek. There is an incident told about the state department printing billions of dollars of worthless Chinese money and sending that into China. I do not know if my hon. friend was referring to those worthless billions when he was talking about the billions of dollars, or whether he was referring to the money sent to China before V-J day when China was an ally of the United States.
It seems to me that the hon. member has reason to revise his opinion. I find it very easy to listen to the hon. member. He is a good speaker, and a plausible speaker. I am afraid that, with some people, he is a convincing speaker. I suggest, however, that there are a great many statements in this speech which he cannot justify. He says that, unfortunately, support of the corrupt regime now in Formosa drove the Chinese literally into the arms of the Soviet union-drove the supporters of the nationalist army into the arms of the communists! We cannot say the same thing about Poland, Roumania or Hungary, all those countries that are in the arms of the Soviets today. It was our mistake in policy. We worshipped at the shrine of Stalin to such a degree that we put these people in the arms of the Russians.
There is another gentleman who went to China, General Chennault, whose famous Flying Tigers fought for Chiang Kai-shek. In an article that is quoted in the Catholic Digest for April, 1952, at page 56, he says:
The great masses of the Chinese people never sought communism. Their leaders were beguiled by pledges of better living conditions at a time when it was hard to imagine that conditions could be worse. Mao Tse-tung promised a stable economy.
Chiang Kai-shek, as the hon. member knows, had driven the communists into one small section of China. He also knows that General Marshall, by calling a truce between the nationalist government and the communists, permitted the Chinese communists to be rearmed and helped by Russia. They became a tower of strength in the north, and then when Chiang Kai-shek did not receive the necessary military assistance, when his soldiers were falling away because they had no munitions, or not the right kind of munitions, the communists drove him to Formosa. How could anyone defend a great territory like China against an enemy who was so well supplied with equipment, and, I must say, well led?
There is another article I think I ought to mention in this magazine the China Monthly, at page 288, written by Colonel W. Bruce Pirnie, of the United States Air Force, and entitled "Who Hamstrings U.S. Military Aid to China?" That article was written in 1948,

External Affairs
as late as the month of October that year. It is stated that on April 3 the United States congress had appropriated $125 million for aid to China, and yet by early autumn nothing had been shipped. That does not look as if billions had been spent in a hurry.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: In what year?


William Joseph Browne: This was in 1948, and the article goes on to analyse 60,000 tons of war munitions that were sent to China, of which only 2.1 per cent were of any value. The rest of it was useless. It was not the kind of ammunition that they needed. This is the sort of thing that gave rise to a lot of people complaining that China was being betrayed within the state department of the United States. Many people have said the same thing since.
The hon. member also made reference to reactionary regimes like that of Syngman Rhee in South Korea. I wonder what sort of regime my hon. friend wants to have in Korea? He links Chiang Kai-shek with Syngman Rhee. I believe one must remember that these countries have not the tradition of representative and responsible government in the same way that we have. We have a long tradition going back almost a thousand years in this form of government. Neither the Chinese nor the Koreans have had that sort of government. I believe it is a credit to their intelligence that they have been willing to accept our form of government and try to get along with it. I think we must make allowances for the fact that it is a novel experiment; with time and patience they should be able to do something for their country.
The hon. member also said that probably Russia helped to arm the Chinese. I am sure he did not need to put in that word "probably". The probability is so great that I think he could speak with moral certitude on that point. The Chinese communist government had no one else to look to for any kind of financial or military assistance. It was from Russia that she received assistance, partly in the form of Japanese equipment and partly in the form of Russian equipment. He says that a large part of their armour came from our country, and had been delivered into their hands by the Chinese soldiers of Chiang Kai-shek. I do not think it is necessary to make any further reference to that.
Then he went on to say that China never will be controlled by an outside nation. The nationalists in China are in retreat. They are on Formosa. Probably in my hon. friend's opinion they do not count for much at the present time. But I would remind him that

the Netherlands government retreated, that the French government retreated and that Chiang Kai-shek retreated before from the Japanese. There is a possibility-it may be a miracle, but let us pray for this miracle to happen-that the Chinese nationalists, the true friends of the western nations, will be able to redeem the territory that has been lost to the communists. We must remember this tragic fact. China controlled by the communists is China controlled by Russia, by a foreign government. My hon. friend says that he inclines to the view that China will develop an independence of its own, something like that of Tito in Yugoslavia- I believe that is the fervent wish of my hon. friend-and that perhaps they may behave themselves as civilized human beings. But does the record up to the present time show that? I refer to the record of the massacres of which we hear, of the confiscations of which we hear, and of the imprisonments of innocent and holy people of which we hear. According to the bulletin of the SS. Peter and Paul missionaries, quoted in the Catholic Digest, the issue of April, 1952, here is what we find:
Bed China
Chinese prisons now hold 22 bishops, at least 400 priests and about 100 sisters. Since the communist regime began two years ago, missionaries forced to leave China number more than 1,500. About 1,000 foreign missionaries remain, including priests and nuns, plus 1,000 Chinese priests, next target of the Reds.
We have a tyranny in China and it is not to be passed over as just a mere minor affair; it is an international affair. The Chinese communists are doing in China what the communists did in Russia, what they did in Poland and what they did in any country over which they have been able to gain control.
I want to draw to the attention of the house another article. This is one which appeared in the March issue of the Catholic Digest, quoting the views of Archbishop Paul Yu-Pin, the archbishop of Nanking. This is a man who owns six dailies and two radio broadcasting stations in China. This will accentuate what I have already said as to how terrible is the situation in which we now find ourselves. We do not actually realize how serious the situation is. He says:
If China is written off as lost to communism, the whole of Asia will then soon fall. Save China, and you save Asia. If Asia is lost to the communists, lost with its vast storehouse of material resources and almost unlimited reservoir of manpower, can anyone doubt that, within our time, the communists will dominate the world? We are today witnessing the appearance of the real Yellow Peril.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's time has expired.


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker,
I rise to take part in this debate with some diffidence. In spite of the outstanding contributions which have been made by many of the hon. members who have preceded me,
I feel that there are one or two points on which useful comment may still be made.
I am convinced that the salient fact that we should keep before us at the present time, and in this debate, is that we are now passing through an extremely critical period in world affairs and that, if we are to go through this period without disaster, we must approach the problems which are before us with a clear and a calm understanding and an almost detached view.
After the end of the second world war we in the western world passed quickly through the stage which we might call the stage of popular recognition of the danger of international communism. The phrase "our gallant Russian allies" quickly lost its meaning under the impact of a series of melancholy and unhappy events in eastern Europe and in Asia. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), who has just taken his seat, has referred to some of those events which took place in the Far East. As the result of this awakening of public realization of danger, those of us who had always recognized atheistic communism for what it is-the most dangerous and the most insidious international conspiracy and also, I think, the most brutal and imperialistic dictatorship that the world has ever known- were gradually joined by, I believe, a large and preponderating majority of the rightthinking people of the western world.
The result of this realization of danger was that the western nations embarked on a great program of self-defence. They embarked on the difficult task of turning from the hopes and the desires of peace to the building up of their collective strength for defence. The main instruments through which this program has been carried on are the Atlantic pact and, under it, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Before I conclude, I should like to say something with respect to that particular phase. Before that, however, I should like to say that from some points of view it is almost fantastic to refer to as success what has already been achieved; but from other points of view great forward strides have been made and the success that has been achieved has, I believe, brought us into a second stage and one which presents great dangers of its own. That is the stage at which the success which we are achieving in providing for our defence against aggression may give rise to a false sense of security which will not
External Affairs
only hinder the progress of our present program but might at the worst undo all the good which has already been done.
In such circumstances I think there is a duty on all those who believe that the danger from communist aggression is not past, so to state their belief and to state it without any equivocation or without any reservation whatsoever. For those who are in a position to do so it is also a duty to counteract, with the recounting of sober and unpleasant facts, *the work which communist propaganda is trying to do throughout the world today, namely to build up in the free world a false feeling of security. I believe it is this fact which renders important the divergence of views which has become apparent both inside and outside this house between the thinking and the policies of the Liberal party and this government on the one hand, and those of the C.C.F. party on the other.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), in dealing with certain policy statements of the C.C.F. and statements made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), did not suggest that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was a communist. I think that the hon. member was correct, in his references to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs had said, in saying that he was not required to defend himself against a charge of communism. In fact the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not call him a communist. What the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, as I heard and read his words- and said quite properly-was that the views of the C.C.F. party as officially expressed, both in this house and outside of it, come dangerously close to the present line of the communist party. I think-and I am sure *that many will agree with me-that the adoption by Canada, or by other countries of the western world, of the policies which are being advocated by the C.C.F. would be regarded by the Russians as a victory and a forward step, from their point of view. I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had an absolute duty to point out this danger and to express himself in the *terms and in the sense that he did.
This division of view, Mr. Speaker, proceeds very largely on the question of the importance and the necessity of economic aid and economic development within the western world, as opposed to the development of our immediate defence build-up. The hope and ideal of giving economic aid and assistance to underdeveloped countries, and to contribute to the rehabilitation of Europe, have a tremendous appeal to all Canadians. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it has its

External Affairs
greatest appeal to the Liberal party, and to the supporters of the Liberal party, because this party has, in the domestic sphere, such an outstanding record of achievement in the field of economic development and social betterment, as opposed to the record of talk about economic improvement and social betterment, which is virtually the sole boast of parties opposite.
However, Mr. Speaker, no matter how attractive the possibility of real economic aid may be, it is our duty to attend to our defence, and we must provide for our mutual security and the defence of freedom, liberty and justice as a first call upon our resources and our ingenuity.
The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), in the course of his remarks, moved an amendment to the present motion, which provides for a censuring of this government for not laying more stress on the performance of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty. Article 2 of the treaty reads as follows:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
I have read article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty because I think that the reasons for voting against and defeating this amendment have already been clearly put on the record in this debate by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his opening speech, and by the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his very able speech, dealing with the measures which are being taken on the economic side. I consider, Mr. Speaker, that the Canadian government is putting the right emphasis on both features of our external policy at the present time. I hope, and I am sure that this hope is shared by all hon. members, that as the international situation improves in the future this emphasis may properly and gradually be shifted towards more constructive action in the economic field. However, at the present time we must keep before us the prime objective of ensuring first of all our security and the protection of our allies in the western world.
I should like to mention a few points arising out of the speech delivered in this debate by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). We always enjoy listening to the hon. member, and we listen to him with great attention and respect. However, I should like to quote what the hon. member for Peel had to say 
at page 675 of Hansard, in referring to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
I thought that at one stage he sounded a rather hostile, and certainly a rather provocative note that, to my mind, was not justified in the circumstances. I hope he did not mean his words to be provocative; but, having in mind the fact that very recently he has been in another quarrel with another party in the house, I was wondering if he thought that perhaps he ought to even up the score, and suggest that some academic discussion should take place on some matters in connection with the Far East.
Then at page 677 he had this to say:
It is all very well for the minister and the government to say they are watching vigilantly to see how many people on this side of the house are going to support them in their Far Eastern policies and so on. Why, you would think he was trying to catch some of the people off guard on some of these academic questions. Instead of that, if I may say so, the minister should be recognizing his own responsibility for the confusion that exists in the public mind right across Canada.
I presume that in using those words the hon. member for Peel was referring to what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in his opening remarks at page 662, as follows:
On this question, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is clear. I hope that before this debate is finished the position of the official opposition, and of the other opposition parties, will also be made clear. We should know where we stand on these matters, and I hope that it will be shown that at least on essentials, and on principles, we stand together.
That is apparently the invitation that was characterized by the hon. member for Peel as an invitation to academic debate, and by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) as an invitation to schoolboy debate. It is my view that the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which I have quoted, is one that he had a duty to make and it is one that the leaders of the opposition parties have a duty to adopt, giving a clear statement of their policies.
The hon. member for Peel referred to confusion in the public mind. He may be correct that there is some confusion in the public mind on matters of external policy, but I believe that any confusion that does exist is not as to the government's position, but as to the position of the critics of the government. The succession of extremely clear and surprisingly detailed statements which have been made by the present Secretary of State for External Affairs have placed the Canadian public in a very good position to determine easily what the policy of the government is on almost every important question in external matters that is facing this country at the present time. But I would very much doubt whether very many numbers of the public would be able to read the speech of the hon.

member for Peel and get any clear conception of what the policy of the Progressive Conservative party is on one or more of these very important problems. For example, the hon. member for Peel himself had this to say at page 674 of Hansard. Here he is speaking about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and he said:
But right at this moment, if I say nothing else with respect to our position in this debate, I wish to make it abundantly clear-and perhaps there is no need for us to make it clear-that at this time we feel strongly that the emphasis must be laid on and the urgent priority given to military preparedness and rearmament; because only behind a wall of military security can these other desirable objectives be achieved.
I think we should welcome that statement from the hon. member for Peel, but the phrase to which I should like to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, is his statement that apparently he is afraid that nothing else regarding the position of his party will be clear as a result of his speech. I am very much afraid he was correct in that estimate of what he proposed to say. I feel therefore that if there is any confusion in the public mind in Canada the responsibility of the government with regard to that confusion is very small indeed. A real effort has been made to place matters of importance before the Canadian people, and to place them in a position to come to informed and reasonable conclusions about the matter.
However, there have been a great many statements from the other side of the house by spokesmen of opposition parties, which have been generally critical of the government's position, but have not dealt as fully as they should have with the points of view of those particular parties. The confusion, if it exists at all, is as a result of the failure of the opposition parties to make clear the points in respect of which they disagree with present government policy.
There is one thing however for which I think we ought all to be thankful, and that is that all parties in the house appear to be agreed on the necessity for the Atlantic pact, and our supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The support of that position, as voiced by the C.C.F. party, is subject to very grave reservations-


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Name the reservations.


John Horace Dickey: -and some people may feel that the reservations are more important than the support. I hope that is not so.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Name the reservations.


John Horace Dickey: The hon. member has listened to the speeches of the hon. member for
External Affairs
Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and he knows the reservations as well as I do. But if there are no reservations, then I trust the hon. member, or some other member of his group, will make that abundantly clear. That is all I am asking.
Canada should feel a great sense of pride in the initiative she has taken in the formation of the Atlantic pact and North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I remember very well indeed on a September evening in 1947 hearing over the radio a rebroadcast of a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), who was then secretary of state for external affairs, and the leader of the Canadian delegation at the assembly of the United Nations. On that occasion he made a speech on behalf of Canada before the first plenary session of that assembly, and it was in that speech that the first public expression was given to the necessity and advisability of a treaty being concluded between the United States and the rest of the western world which, in time, became the Atlantic pact.
I remember the sincerity with which that speech was made and the realization I had afterwards that what had been suggested was something that held great possibilities for world peace, and for the unification of all those countries having similar ideals and purposes. I think that in the years that have passed since then we have all felt a great sense of pride that this Atlantic pact has become a reality and that it is recognized not only throughout the western world but in the communist world as well as largely a Canadian achievement. We must feel pride when we realize that to a great extent this has been the result of Canadian thought and initiative, and Canada's determination to cooperate with all like-minded countries in the establishment of a lasting peace.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to follow the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey). During the course of his speech he said that the C.C.F. had certain reservations about NATO. I think I asked him at least three or four times to tell me what the reservations were, or to tell the house, and he was either unwilling to do so or incapable of doing so. I suggest that the latter reason is probably the correct one.
Our position with regard to NATO is very clear-cut and very well known. We support NATO as it is at present constituted without any reservations whatsoever. But we do say this, that the government of this country-


John Horace Dickey: This is number one.

External Affairs


Alistair McLeod Stewart: We do say
that the government, by its inaction in helping the nations of Europe economically, is contributing to what might be unhappily the ultimate success of the communists. That is the thing we oppose; and because we oppose it we insist there must be more sacrifice on the part of Canadians to defeat communism in Europe, by means of economic help. If that is a reservation, then my hon. friend is welcome to call it that.
Either the hon. member or someone else stated that the policy of the C.C.F. in regard to our position in NATO is dangerously close to the line of the communist party. That is unadulterated nonsense. We want to see NATO strengthened, but we do believe that the way to strengthen it is by giving still more economic aid to those countries in Europe which are our allies, so that they may be able to withstand the economic menace.
I regret that I was not able to follow directly after the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne), yet perhaps it is just as well, because he would have distracted me somewhat from what I was going to say. But I can assure him of this. I am happy he is not responsible for writing the history books of this country of ours. Having listened to him quote Kohlberg and others of the China lobby, I can only hope he is one of the last reactionaries in his party.
In so far as the debate proper is concerned, it was manifestly impossible for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to have included during the course of his speech a reference to every sore spot in the world. He did make passing reference to Indo-China, and then went on to other matters. I wish he had dealt at greater length with the situation there, because I feel now, as I did two years ago, that the potential dangers in Indo-China are even greater than they are in Korea.
There are other areas also upon which he might elucidate further at a later time. I agree however with the hon. member for Halifax in his reference to the reply by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) when the Secretary of State for External Affairs addressed certain quite pointed questions to that hon. member. It is not good enough to say that one regards a debate on what is happening in Asia as something academic. What is happening today in Korea is certainly not academic. What is happening in Indo-China is far from academic. And our policy toward China is also something which cannot be put into the academic category.

I disagree again with the hon. member for Peel when he says that our policy in the Far East should be almost on a day to day basis. That, I think, would be folly. We have to have a long term policy. We have to know why we are pursuing a policy in which we believe, and where we hope to get with it.
The minister has made it reasonably clear as to what our policy is in respect to certain areas in Asia. We are not prepared, he said, to give assistance to Chiang Kai-shek; we are not prepared to help him back to the mainland; we have no desire to destroy the regime in Peking, no matter how much we may happen to dislike it.
We can only hope these policies are made abundantly clear to the Chinese administration. We can only hope that policies similar to those above which have been stated in the capitals of other western countries have been made clear to China, although I doubt if that is so. The Chinese are still obviously suspicious of the west, and perhaps with good reason when we remember the fulminations of MacArthur, and when we listen to Admiral Fechteler when that gentleman says that the Korean war should be carried to the Chinese coast, if no armistice can be signed in Korea.
Statements such as these given by people in responsible positions surely only make the task which we have more difficult. I am convinced we are not going to achieve any political settlement in Korea until we have a peaceful settlement with China. And when I speak of peace I regard it in the same way as Litvinoff did at the league of nations a number of years ago when he said that peace is indivisible. We cannot be at peace with China in Korea and at war with China in Formosa.
And so we shall have to have a general settlement of the Asian problem, if that is possible, before we can achieve peace in Korea. But what the Chinese fear is that if peace is arrived at in Korea, then the Americans may be tempted to transfer their troops from fighting in Korea to the support of Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa.
The first and obviously the most important step we have to take is to achieve a truce. General Ridgway, speaking the other day, asked the western world once again to be patient and to realize the difficulties which confronted the negotiators. I think we have been patient, I think we do realize the difficulties that are there. But speaking of the armistice talks, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is reported on page 664 of Hansard of March 22 as follows:
They take the form of offensives and counteroffensives, attacks and counter-attacks, and it is impossible to be either optimistic or pessimistic about an eventual satisfactory conclusion.

I think those who are conducting the negotiations for us in Korea should be satisfied not to indulge any longer in counter-offensives or counter-attacks. I remember a few weeks ago the Chinese advanced a proposition concerning a peaceful settlement of the Korean situation which ended with the words "et cetera." For three or four days there was discussion as to precisely what the words "et cetera" meant. Admiral Joy said at one time, and I have no way of knowing whether he carried his point or not, that et cetera certainly did not include Formosa. That was a political decision which it was not for the military to make. If the substituting of civilians for the group at present carrying on negotiations will bring about a truce sooner, then I think it would be worth while to make that substitution, no matter whose toes may be trod upon in the process.
It is with the signing of the truce that new difficulties and new problems will appear. One unhappy fact that has come out is that no potential leader seems to have appeared in Korea since the war started. There may be a very good reason for that. If he appeared in North Korea he would be liquidated as a reactionary; if he appeared in South Korea he would be destroyed as a communist collaborator. That is one of the unhappy facts we have to face. Above all we have to leave the Koreans to their own future without any western interference. They may not have the sort of government we would like to see there, but that is their business and not ours.
The devastation and destruction that has been wrought in that country is almost beyond comprehension. Over 15 per cent of the population, over 15 per cent of the men, women and children, are dead. One hundred thousand children are wandering up and down Korea without any future or hope. Five million people are displaced. Three-quarters of a million homes have been destroyed and there are so many maimed that the number cannot be counted. There are so many maimed that a United Nations committee has decided to build a factory in Korea for the manufacture of artificial limbs. I should like to give the house just one example of the many countless tragedies which today are taking place in Korea. This is from a book called "The Korean Reporter" written by Rene Cutforth, a BBC correspondent in Korea. Dealing with the effects of napalm, he has this to say:
In front of us a curious figure was standing, a little crouched, legs straddled, arms held out from his sides. He had no eyes, and the whole of his body, nearly all of which was visible through tatters of burnt rags, was covered with a hard black
External Affairs
crust speckled with yellow pus. A Korean woman by his side began to speak, and the interpreter said:	"He has to stand, sir, cannot sit or lie."
He had to stand because he was no longer covered with a skin, but with a crust like crackling which broke easily.
No one can think of what we are doing there without being filled with a sense of spiritual desolation. But we are at war. No one can think of what we are doing there to the innocent and guiltless without a feeling of almost infinite compassion. But still we are at war. Napalm is a terrible weapon, yet I doubt if it is any less worse at times than high explosive. The atom bomb is a fearsome instrument of war, yet I doubt if it is any worse than napalm except in magnitude. Our minds should rise in revolt against the use of these things, but we are at war and we must conclude that war, and conclude it successfully.
That is why I say that the sooner we arrive at a truce, the better. Following upon that, the sooner we can arrive at a settled and reasonable and honest peace, the better. None of us wants to perpetuate these horrors which are taking place, but I repeat that once we arrive at a truce, once we arrive at a peace, we shall have before us the great task of reconstruction which must be carried out without any strings attached. I hope that we will not make again the mistake of becoming Asian Warwicks.
I should like to refer briefly to the situation in Indo-China, which I said earlier is potentially more serious than the situation in Korea. Today the French are growing tired and weary. They are becoming desperate because of the drain upon their resources. I think it is fair to assume that the Viet Minh are also becoming tired of a fight which has been going on since 1946. We do not know the cost to the Viet Minh, but we do know that it is costing France at least one billion dollars a year. Many of the flower of French manhood are being killed. The French are in the position where they would like to bring back the divisions they have in Indo-China to Europe so that they could correct any imbalance which appears there, due to other plans that are being made.
The Viet Minh are getting Chinese help. France has been getting help from the United States and to some extent from Great Britain. The main thing is that on the northern border of Indo-China there is a Chinese army of from one hundred thousand to two hundred and fifty thousand men. We do not know what they are going to do, but I think it is a safe assumption that if military assistance is given to the French in that area in the shape of troops then these Chinese divisions will move from the north. That might be

External Affairs
almost fatal to our hopes of saving Asia from going entirely communist. If the Chinese were to go in there they would control one of the breadbaskets of Asia.
We know that recently the Chinese suffered from a famine. We know that they are not self-sufficient in the matter of rice or other foods. That opens up the possibility that they will look with acquisitive eyes upon Indochina, but if Indo-China goes, so will Thailand and Burma.
That is one reason why I welcome the suggestion made a few weeks ago in Paris by Mr. Schuman. He proposed that the time had come to start negotiating with the Viet Minh in an attempt to bring about peace.
In so far as China is concerned, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne) apparently believes implicitly that China controlled by the communists-these are his words-is a China controlled by Russia. I do not believe that the evidence adds up to that. I am still not convinced that China is a soviet satellite. In 1949 Mao said that the Chinese problem must be solved by the Chinese, that they would not tolerate outside interference. That outside interference applied to Russia as well as to the western world.
I have not been in China but I have read something about it and have discussed it with those who have been there. I think it is fair to say that the Chinese still regard foreigners as barbarians. Who can blame them for that? But "foreign barbarians" includes the Russians, and therefore it precludes the possibility of the Chinese regarding Stalin as their master. Indeed when history comes to be written, when we come to get a proper perspective on events, I think we shall find that the Chinese revolution has been as legitimate as was the French revolution. It was a revulsion against misery, a revolution against foreign domination.
It is in the national interest, it is in our highest interest to attempt to achieve with them a peaceful settlement as soon as possible. Otherwise we run the risk pointed out by the hon. member for St. John's West of forcing China into the arms of Russia. On the other hand, if we arrive at a peaceful settlement with the Chinese then they themselves will find that they have their own problems on their own hands.
The hon. member for St. John's West has perhaps forgotten that it was Chiang Kai-shek who handed over Manchuria and Mongolia to the Russians. China wants those provinces back.


William Joseph Browne: Was that as a result of the signing of the Russian treaty with China, the treaty that China was forced to sign?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: No, it was
done voluntarily in return for Russian assistance. I want to remind my hon. friend that when Chiang Kai-shek was fighting on the mainland in China he was getting Soviet assistance and the ideological colleagues of Stalin were getting none. That is one of the things which Mao remembers.


William Joseph Browne: What time was that?


Alistair McLeod Stewart: About 1947 or 1948. The Chinese want those provinces back because they are wealthy and rich provinces. I suspect that one of the reasons for Mao's going to Moscow was to see what he could do about getting them back. He did not come back with them, but he came back with something which no other nation, certainly no satellite, has emerged with from Moscow. He came back with an agreement which on the face of it was mainly to the benefit of China. Russia promised to withdraw from Dairen and Port Arthur.
Russia promised to give China back certain rail facilities. Russia promised a loan of $300 million in United States dollars spread over a period of five years, and also promised the return of military equipment looted from Manchuria. I have no means of knowing whether or not those promises will be kept. I do know that no satellite has ever come back from Moscow with such great prizes as the Chinese. The Chinese regard Manchuria as important for we all know it contains fabulous wealth. Sinkiang is potentially rich, and the Chinese want to get it back. I have noticed that recently the Russian commissars have been withdrawn from Sinkiang and replaced by Chinese. The Russians are interested in this area because of the uranium deposits which are supposed to be there. China, because she is an ambitious country, quite naturally wants to get back inner and outer Mongolia. I suggest, therefore, that we should leave them to settle their own problems with Russia, and indeed give them every encouragement to do so. We are not going to make any progress in that until peace is negotiated, and that is why I say our greatest interest is to see that peace is achieved. Otherwise, we shall merely compel the Chinese to turn again to the Soviets for still further solace.
Now, there is another matter which I should like to discuss, one which we have brought up before on the floor of this house, and which has been treated with some

scepticism if not an element of derision. I refer to the fact that we believe there is great danger in the present military control over policy. We are not alone in believing that. I have here a statement by an associate justice of the supreme court of the United States, the Hon. William O. Douglas, who I am sure most people will realize is a very sane and responsible citizen. The heading on this article is, "We Have Become Victims of the Military Mind." I should like to quote part of it:
Some say that although there has been a great inroad of military men into public office, the situation is saved by the umbrella of civilians that is held over them. It is true that many departments, manned by the military, have civilian heads. But anyone who knows government knows that policy is made at the expert level. The hidden layer of military personnel shapes the thinking and policy of many an agency; the civilian heads by and large are merely spokesmen for what the military want. This is a necessary consequence of the complexities of a bureaucracy.
The military have such a dominating influence in our foreign affairs, and foreign affairs are so large in every budget, that military men are inheriting more and more domestic roles.
So states Mr. Justice Douglas, and it is a warning to which we must pay heed. We in the C.C.F. have criticized the United States in the past, and I think it is legitimate to do so when our interests are affected. But that does not in any way reduce by one iota the credit which is due the United States for the generosity it has shown, not only to us but to other nations. When our interests are affected, however, we feel it is legitimate to speak those things which are on our minds as between friends. We look upon the United States as a great and powerful neighbour. We are thankful to have the United States there. But sometimes I think the United States should be very thankful to have a country like Canada on her northern border.
There is evidence to suggest that the joint chiefs of staff in Washington have been making foreign policy. The result has been that we have been presented almost with accomplished facts on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. We had to take it or run the risk of disrupting an alliance which is necessary to our own defence. We do not like that sort of presentation of policy. In May, 1950, General Bradley appeared before the foreign affairs committee and he said then that the rearming of Germany was vital to the defence of the west. That was the opinion of the joint chiefs of staff in May, 1950. We can remember that Europe was thrown into a tailspin by the remarks of the general, and then in September, 1950, we remember Mr. Acheson announcing to the North Atlantic council that the United States favoured rearming Germany. The Secretary of State for External
External Affairs
Affairs will appreciate, I think, the many complications which followed upon that statement by the United States.
It is the policy of the joint chiefs of staff, and they have made it known, to strengthen Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa. Apparently the state department has gone along, and the question is, if the worst comes to the worst, how far are we going to be brought into this whole unhappy imbroglio. It was the joint chiefs of staff who urged that the United States negotiate with Franco to get air bases in Spain, as they became important to their global strategy. The demands of global strategy again may have prompted the joint chiefs of staff to say to the United States that Greece and Turkey should be brought into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I do not know whether or not that is right, but there is reason for believing it to be so. These countries were brought in. Of course, there is military influence, and we must expect it, but we have to be on the watch to see that it does not exceed its legitimate bounds.
There are other areas, too, where it can be felt, if not seen. We have a new administration in the United States, the mutual security administration, which is a single centralized agency under Mr. Averell Harri-man. It is responsible for carrying out military assistance and giving foreign aid. Apparently, it is completely under the control of Mr. Harriman, but unhappily in practice it is the Pentagon which determines the nature of the military aid. The objective behind this administration is to strengthen the economies of assisted countries by increasing their capacity to produce the things which they need. It is a very laudable objective and one which we support. Yet I understand that the French have developed a prototype of one of the most powerful tanks in the world. However, they are not allowed to make it because the United States says that it would take too long to tool-up and get into production. And so tanks are made in the United States and sent to France. Unfortunately, they are not forthcoming in the volume in which the French would like. The British want to make a certain type of helicopter. They were told by the United States: "No, we think we can do it better because we have the facilities and the raw materials." Instead of the European countries getting dollars for manufacturing these things and selling them, they are without the dollars to buy the raw materials which our country has. They are being left not only without the dollars but without the weapons which they need. I think it is most desirable and essential that we rationalize, so far as possible, the production of material amongst the North Atlantic

External Affairs
countries. We are not going to achieve it in this way. It would be advisable to some extent to let each country make that thing which it is competent to make.
This brings me back to the point we raised earlier in this debate, the necessity for economic aid. I take it for granted that hon. members realize the tremendous benefits which United States generosity has conferred upon Europe with the $12 billion of Marshall aid. The people of the United States were more than generous, and they achieved their objective. In 1947 starvation was haunting Europe. Four years later agricultural production had been raised about 95 per cent, industrial production had reached many of its objectives, and maximum output was being achieved. Europe was almost on its feet. Then, the best laid schemes of mice and men really went a-gley, and there was aggression in Korea. The effect of that aggression on the economies of our European allies was almost catastrophic. There was a scramble for raw materials. Naturally those nations which had the dollars had the advantage in the scramble on the markets of the world. The nations of Europe could not afford the new prices. They had to pay more for the materials and therefore they had to export more. By exporting more, they reduced their own standard of living in the search for more dollars. Prices were increased and production fell. Today we see a situation in Europe where the economies of many countries, if not in a dangerous situation, are at least exceedingly shaky. One of the things we object to is that we are building on top of this shaky foundation a huge superstructure, a superstructure of military might, one which is necessary for defence. Unless we have a firm base underneath, it may topple over and crash. Europe needs economic assistance as much as it needs military assistance today. That is our opinion, and it is the opinion of General Gruenther, who was speaking before the senate foreign relations committee a few days ago.
A headline in the Christian Science Monitor says, "Gruenther says Economic Aid is as Vital as Arms," That is one thing to which we have not been paying attention. Ever since I came to parliament in 1945, we in the C.C.F. have argued that the best way to defeat communism in this world is not by guns but by feeding people, and by so raising their standards of living that communism will have no appeal for them. Ours were voices crying in the wilderness, but I am glad to recall that when the Secretary of State for External Affairs came to this
house he also took up the cry. We in the C.C.F. believe we can afford to give more than we have been giving. It has not been very much. This is not original because a friend of mine told it to me, but sometimes I think we are in the position of a man pressing up to the bar amongst the bigger boys to get his share of what is going on, yet when his turn to pay came he beat a very discreet retreat.
Of course we shall be told a week next Tuesday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) when he comes to this house that everything in Canada is for the best in this best of all possible Canadas-we shall be told that our industrial production is at its peak and our agricultural production is high, and that we are enjoying a high degree of prosperity. If that is so, surely we are able to give more than the small amount we have done in giving economic aid to our allies in Europe. It is possible that the Minister of Finance may be one of those honest souls of whom his leader spoke, one of those honest souls who do not realize the need for further sacrifice. The Minister of Finance may be one of those who do not realize the need for further deprivation if we are going to maintain our national and our collective security. We argue that the purpose of our amendment is to bring forward this fact.
We do not believe that enough is being done by Canada in the fight against communism. The parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his interesting speech yesterday made some excellent and valid points. We are doing apparently as much as we can in the Colombo plan. In the matter of technical assistance, again, we are doing everything we can. But that is not to say that we are doing everything we can in so far as Europe is concerned. I think we should also remember this. We in the C.C.F. are suggesting giving more economic aid to Europe now in the shape of raw materials and those supplies which they need to produce for themselves. We ourselves have been in receipt of economic help, not directly but indirectly. We obtained a billion and a quarter American dollars under Marshall aid, which we badly needed, in the shape of offshore purchases. That aid helped our agriculture and industry substantially.
We are not being deprived of much in this country. We can have guns and butter. But in Europe the problem is guns or bread. When you get that situation communism becomes dangerous. In the last national election in France, despite the gerrymandering of the voters list, 26 per cent of the French voted communist. In the last municipal elections

in Italy, 37 per cent of the people voted communist. There is your greatest threat today. We should therefore do everything which it is humanly possible to do in order to get rid of this threat. The only way to do it is to raise the European standard of living, to raise European production by giving them these raw materials which they need and which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) refused when he was asked by the temporary council committee. The temporary council committee put up a proposition to Canada that we give X number of dollars in aid and raw materials to Europe; whether you put it at $100 million or $200 million at the moment does not matter. I at least will compromise for $100 million. I argue that it would pay us to give Europe today $100 million worth of raw materials. But the answer of the Minister of Finance, this honest soul who has lulled himself into a sense of security, says: Oh, no, we cannot do that; we do not have the dollars. Of course we could get $100 million if we wanted to do so. I told him how to do it the other day. All he has to do is to cut out luxury travel in the United States. But so far as this honest soul who is at the head of treasury is concerned, dollars at the moment mean much more than defence.
Time after time the Secretary of State for External Affairs has come to this house and said: we can help to combat communism with economic aid; and time after time the government has refuted his suggestion by doing nothing. This is an amazing example of governmental schizophrenia. Who is making government policy? Is it the minister who very rightly says that if we are to combat communism we must give economic aid, or is it the Minister of Finance who says that we are not prepared to give anything? I think it is time we know precisely what the situation is. As the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said the other day in Toronto:
The foundations of combined strength we have already laid in the free world have given us a greater sense of security and grounds for hope that the war all decent people dread can be prevented. 1 regret to say the precautions we have taken seem to have lulled some honest souls in our midst into a false sense of security, and to have induced them to join in agitation against the sacrifices and deprivations without which we cannot have any security.
Mr. Speaker, the honest souls who refuse to aid our own security are a government who refuse economic aid to our allies when they need it so desperately.


Mr. C. E. Bennett (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this debate, certainly not as an expert on international affairs but rather from the point of view of a western Ontario member who had the privilege of
External Affairs
attending the sixth session of the general assembly at Paris last fall. Like the hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget), and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), I wish to express my appreciation to the government for my inclusion in the Canadian delegation, which proved to me to be a broadening and educational experience indeed.
The policy of the government in selecting members of the House of Commons and of the Senate as delegates, alternate delegates and observers at the sessions of the United Nations general assembly has my full endor-sation. Such experiences are bound to widen the base upon which a member of parliament has to make up his own mind not only on international issues but on domestic problems as well. To hear Mr. Vishinsky or Mr. Katz-Suchy in one of their tirades is a different matter altogether from reading those gentlemen's speeches in the press. Our policy of sending representatives of opposite political parties as observers at the UN stands out in refreshing relief from the type of representation from the cominform countries.
I wish to report that Canada's prestige at the United Nations is extremely high. It was my honour to represent our country on the sixth or legal committee. On the very first morning we met, a great many delegates from other countries told me how highly Canada was regarded not only at the United Nations but in their respective countries; and as I looked around, I could see that this was not a routine performance. I am sure that other members who have attended previous sessions of the general assembly will confirm the fact that one of the first impressions a newcomer has at the United Nations is of the popularity of Canada and the esteem in which our country is held.
Canada's popularity at the United Nations, I suggest, stems from various reasons: our participation in two world wars; our foreign policy; our assistance to underprivileged countries; and last but not least, the two men who have most recently held the office of secretary of state for external affairs and who headed the Canadian delegations at the United Nations. I did not have the privilege of attending the general assembly when the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) headed the Canadian delegation, but I think all hon. members are fully aware of the extent to which Canada's place in international affairs was enhanced by his leadership and by his subsequent contribution to the creation and development of NATO.

External Affairs
A journey to Paris was not necessary for me to learn the standing of our present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at the United Nations. His chairmanship of the first or political committee on two occasions, his chairmanship of NATO, and the widespread acclaim he received when his name was mentioned for the position of secretary-general of NATO are known to all hon. members. It was not by mere chance that Mr. St. Laurent and Mr. Pearson were nominated recently for the Nobel peace prize.
As you may know, the Secretary of State for External Affairs represented Canada on the first or political committee; the hon. member for Levis represented our country on the second or economic committee and also on the fifth or budgetary committee; Mrs. R. J. Marshall, LL.D., of Agincourt, the immediate past-president of the Canadian Council of Women, on the third or social and humanitarian committee; the hon. member for Kindersley and the Hon. Senator Hurtubise on the fourth or trusteeship committee. The hon. member for Nanaimo was the parliamentary observer for the Progressive Conservative party and while we on this side of the house certainly do not agree with everything he has said since he returned from Paris, I must admit that he was an exceedingly congenial and competent observer.
As many in the house have not had an opportunity of meeting Mrs. Marshall, I want to record the fact that she was a very able delegate. Competing with such notables as Mrs. Roosevelt and Madame Figueroa of Chile, Mrs. Marshall held her own and made many worth-while contributions to the work of our delegation and the third committee. In fact, Canadian women were prominent at the United Nations. Besides Mrs. Marshall, Mrs. Adelaide Sinclair was again elected to the head of UNICEF, the international children's emergency fund. Another prominent Canadian woman was Miss Marjorie Gordon, of the Canadian consulate general of New York, who acted as our press information officer. The work of Miss Gordon, who is the daughter of Ralph Connor, the famous Canadian writer, was outstanding.
Each of the Canadian representatives on the various committees had the benefit of the advice and experience of one or more specialists from the departments of external affairs and of finance. These civil servants impressed me greatly, not only from the point of view of their knowledge and background-they were Rhodes scholars, postgraduates of Oxford and so on, as well as

being veterans of world conferences-but also because they were down to earth practical Canadians.
In order to save money the Department of External Affairs used the services of a number of their personnel who were already stationed in Europe. One of these, Mr. Thomas Stone, our ambassador to Sweden, was given the high honour of being elected chairman of the budgetary committee.
Having spent some time in Paris, I would be remiss if I did not mention General Vanier, our ambassador to France, and his charming wife, who do a tremendous job of selling Canada in France. Their many courtesies to us in Paris made the work of our delegates much easier.
I shall mention only briefly the proceedings of the legal committee. My first thoughts of the legal committee, I must confess, were that it would be difficult for sixty lawyers from sixty countries speaking a variety of languages to reach an agreement on anything. While some of my fears were well founded, generally speaking our discussions proceeded in a satisfactory manner and they were freer from acrimony than those of the other committees. Nine items were assigned to the legal committee, the most important being a proposal to improve the general assembly methods of procedure for dealing with legal and drafting questions, the draft declaration on the rights and duties of states and reservations to the genocide convention and to multilateral conventions.
A great number of items have been covered in this foreign affairs debate and I intend to mention only a few points that have been raised in previous speeches. This is only the second time during the life of this parliament that we have witnessed a motion of lack of confidence in the external affairs policy of our government, the other time being when the C.C.F. party moved an amendment in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne last year. Canadians have always prided themselves on the fact that when the chips are down we present a common front to the enemy. Like the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright), some of us attended the session of the chamber of deputies in France, at a time when the whole foreign policy of the Pleven government, including France's participation in NATO, was under bitter debate. On that occasion the government was sustained by a very slim majority and I remember our smug thoughts to the effect: "It could not happen at home." I am not suggesting that it is happening to that extent

here, but I must confess that the C.C.F. amendment concerns me, certainly not on its merits, but on the fact that it was moved at all.
This is the second time within the last two weeks that the C.C.F. party has flared up against the government's foreign policy. In moving his amendment the hon. member for Melfort stated that Canada was not contributing a cent to the economic support of her NATO allies. The Secretary of State for External Affairs then asked if the hon. member considered $300 million being voted in our estimates for mutual aid this year as an aid to our NATO partners. The hon. member then said, as recorded at page 771 of Hansard:
"The minister is talking about mutual aid. We are asking that it be extended, not that the insurance be dropped."
I do not know what the hon. member means, but I am not alone in that, because I noticed an editorial in a Toronto morning newspaper and the editor did not know what the hon. member for Melfort meant.


Mr. Wright:: May I enlighten the hon.
member?


Colin Emerson Bennett: Yes.


Percy Ellis Wright: If he will read clause 2 and clause 3 of the NATO treaty he will find that clause 2 has to do with economic aid, and clause 3 has to do with mutual aid, which are two different things.


Colin Emerson Bennett: Thank you. I think the hon. member for Melfort is getting very legal. I suggest to him that because the words "mutual aid" are mentioned in article 3 and not mentioned in article 2 does not mean that mutual aid cannot strengthen the economies of our allies. I also say to him that just because the President of the United States happened to set aside in his appropriation three different items, it does not mean that we cannot lump ours in one. NATO is one military effort; it is not split up into a number of separate compartments. I say to the hon. member for Melfort, if he has a dollar in his pocket and he decides to buy a book, and I give him that book, he can then go out and buy some other article with that dollar. By giving him the book have I not strengthened his economy, no matter whether I call it mutual aid or economic collaboration?
Let us take a practical example. Let us take the proposition that the French government has decided to provide some money for jeeps which are needed for the defence of France, and we find that in Canada we can make these jeeps more economically, which is true, and under mutual aid we then decide
External Affairs
to give the jeeps to France. Is that not an advantageous mutual bargain all the way through? Are we not strengthening the economy of France? Would not that release money for other expenditures in France? Will not that $324 million which is in the estimates at the present time bolster the economies of our NATO allies?
We lawyers are accused of getting technical, but I was surprised at the hon. member for Melfort putting up the artificial argument that, just because mutual aid is mentioned in article 3 and something about strengthening the economies in article 2, aid under either article is not strengthening the economies of our European allies. The C.C.F. party as a rule has never been that technical about their policy. Further, I should like to say to the hon. member for Melfort-I wish he would not go out: Does he not think that, although the high level NATO talks are being conducted necessarily on a secret basis, that all the different ways in which we can help our NATO allies are being constantly reviewed and under constant survey, and that this $324 million has been passed by our allies and will be gratefully acceptable to them?


Percy Ellis Wright: It should have been given two years ago, instead of now.


Colin Emerson Bennett: You are changing your story now.


Percy Ellis Wright: I am not changing the story at all. We have had the same story all along.


Colin Emerson Bennett: As far as economic aid is concerned, we in Canada would like to do much more, but the position of the government is that first things come first. It is the first responsibility of this government to restore our defences to the position that we can resist aggression, after which we shall increasingly direct our attention to giving economic aid to our allies. Our policy in the meantime is to give as much aid as possible. I remember reading in the U.S. News and World Report, issued just a month or so ago, which has been quoted quite often in this house, that a military expert said it would not be until midsummer that our defences could be built up in western Europe to withstand an attack by the twenty-five Russian divisions permanently stationed in east Germany and Poland alone, to say nothing about a full-scale attack by the main Russian armies. I can still remember Mr. Vishinsky, and I am sure the hon. member for Melfort remembers him, with his owlish, blinking eyes, wagging his finger at the delegation of the west, and saying: You

External Affairs
are spending too much on armament. He would like very much to have us reduce our expenditures on armaments.


Percy Ellis Wright: My amendment does not
suggest that we cut down on armaments.


Colin Emerson Bennett: I am not suggesting that the hon. member did suggest that; I am just saying that Mr. Vishinsky would welcome it. I wish every hon. member had the opportunity to see Mr. Vishinsky and Mr. Malik in action. If they had, the debate in this house would proceed on a different line.
Naturally, the whole purpose of this C.C.F. amendment is to create the impression in this country that Canada is not doing its bit. Like the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), I am annoyed. When you go out of Canada you find that the people praise this country for its generosity; when you go to the United Nations the people there keep telling you that this country is at the head of the list, or near the head of the list, in contributing to the international community chest. You come home and then you are confronted with an amendment like the one moved by the hon. member for Melfort. I agree with the hon. member for Cochrane that the C.C.F. party would be the first to complain if taxes were raised to pay for this increased economic assistance that they suggest. Canada after all is only a nation of 14 million people.
The leader of the C.C.F. party referred to the need for an attempt, and a continuous endeavour, to reach a progressive disarmament agreement among the nations, and particularly with Russia. That of course is the policy of our government. To give full credit to the leader of the C.C.F. party, he fully explained in his speech he realized that that is the policy of all the free nations of the world.
At the sixth general assembly every attempt was made by the democratic countries to narrow the gulf between them and the communist world. You will recall that at the very outset, Mr. Dean Acheson, on behalf of the big three, advanced a progressive disarmament program. It was that proposal that Mr. Vishinsky said was so funny he could not get to sleep that night for laughing. Again, in number one committee the same scheme was put forward in more detail. Later a subcommittee of the political committee met in secret, attended only by the representatives of France, United States, the United Kingdom and Russia. Hope was held in some quarters that since the meeting of this subcommittee was to be held behind closed doors, something productive would be the outcome. After all, it is difficult to hold a round-the-table discussion with representatives of sixty

nations in attendance and in the limelight of radio, press and television. So for a whole week an American, an Englishman, a Russian and a Frenchman discussed disarmament, but at the conclusion of the meeting the report of the subcommittee showed the same deadlock existed as had obtained in the political committee and in the general assembly. As had been said on many occasions, the heart of the matter is the refusal of the Kremlin to accept the principle of international inspection and control of arms, including atomic installations. Such inspection and control, according to Russia, interfere with its national sovereignty. It is elementary to say that we of the west cannot agree to disarm, and pursuant to that agreement actually disarm, unless we see for ourselves and know for certain that other countries are doing the same. We cannot gamble our way of life on the word of the Kremlin.
Of course the real heart of the matter is that the Russians are not interested in reaching a genuine agreement on world disarmament and therefore world peace. If such an agreement could be reached, Canada could spend the billions it is now expending for national defence on such things as the development of our natural resources, on social benefits such as national health insurance, and for assistance to the underprivileged nations of the world-the very antithesis of what Mr. Stalin desires.
And so, at the session of the United Nations I attended, the delegates of the U.S.S.R., Byelorussia, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia and Poland blocked, stalled, raised points of procedure and did everything they could to prevent the nations of the world from reaching an agreement on disarmament and, for that matter, from reaching an agreement on anything. I came to the conclusion it was impossible to have a discussion with communist delegates. Each time such a delegate spoke he delivered a long propaganda speech, always along the same pattern, branding the United States, the United Kingdom and the western democracies, as warmongers, and asserting that Russia alone stood for peace. Even in our legal committee, which enjoyed the reputation of being fairly free from political propaganda, the U.S.S.R. delegate on one occasion told of what he called the start of the Korean war, by describing in fairly great detail the invasion of North Korea by American troops. The Moscow line is even more fantastic to listen to than it is when one reads it in the newspapers.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) mentioned the atmosphere of the United Nations. I can assure him there was

the same atmosphere last fall that he described when he was there some years ago. The iron curtain is still down at the United Nations, so far as Soviet delegates are concerned. These delegates, both in and out of meetings, were always very careful not to earn the reputation of being too friendly with anyone from the west.
The hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) suggested that if Russia were ever to have a genuine turn of heart, because of the mistrust that has been built up throughout the years we might not then recognize Russia's sincerity. Well, my only answer to that is that it is possible, but I do not think it is probable, because the west is longing for peace. It will be recalled that Mr. Vishinsky made a speech last February before the United Nations in which he said that Russia was then willing to accept the principle of continuing inspection. The whole west, even though we had been fooled many times by Mr. Vishinsky's speeches, was filled with hope. Of course two or three days later his speech was analysed and clarified, when he said Russia was willing to accept continuing inspection, so long as it did not interfere with the domestic life of the state. There is always a catch in Mr. Vishinsky's speeches.
I suggest to the hon. member for Acadia that, even so, our policy remains that the door to negotiations will be kept open; not only will it be kept open, but there will be someone there on watch.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar intimated that Canada is gaining quite a reputation at the United Nations for its abstentions. I am not aware of the basis for such a remark, and I certainly do not concur in the suggestion that Canada has gained that reputation. While I was there, any time Canada abstained I was satisfied that we had a good reason for abstaining. Undoubtedly there are occasions when, in the interests of our country and of world peace and understanding, it is wise to abstain rather than to cast either an affirmative or a negative vote. As the hon. member must fully realize, Canada does occupy a unique position in world affairs, not only being the go-between and the confidante of Great Britain and the United States, but also being a member of NATO and of the British commonwealth of nations. It is no wonder the statement has often been made that no other 14 millions of people exert the same degree of influence as does the Canadian nation at the conference tables of the world.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), who has had a great deal of experience in the field of foreign
External Affairs
affairs, and who serves as foreign affairs critic of the Progressive Conservative party. From what I could see, his chief complaint against the policy of the government was that not enough information has been released as to what NATO is doing. All I can say about that is that I agree with the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Dickey) in his submission that a good deal of information has been given in this debate both by the minister and by his parliamentary assistant. It is customary of course for the opposition to demand more information, regardless of how much has already been given. During the same debate I mentioned, when I attended in the chamber of deputies in Paris, I noted that the opposition there-and it made me homesick for the Progressive Conservatives-were asking for more information, too. It was denied them on grounds of security. I do not know how the people of Peel county feel, but many of the good people of Grey have told me that they believe democratic countries give out too much information as it is.
Reference has been made in the debate to the fact that, during recent months, many leaders of western countries have expressed the view that the danger of the immediate outbreak of a third world war is lessening. Those opinions, while always expressed in a cautious manner, have undoubtedly encouraged the thinking among some of our people that Russia has no intention of provoking an attack, and therefore we are wasting billions of dollars on national defence. Those same people reason that if Russia had entertained plans for invading Europe or Japan, those plans would have been implemented by now, before the free world had the opportunity to rearm.
Two answers are suggested in reply to that line of thinking: First, Russia has been doing exceedingly well since 1945 in its campaign to dominate the world. Six hundred million people have been added to its empire. We have lost Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Roumania and China. It may well be that the Russian campaign is progressing exactly according to the master plan locked up in the Kremlin. And all this has been accomplished without the loss of a Russian soldier.
The second reason for the failure of Russia to take the offensive in an all-out attack may be found in the statement of Mr. Winston Churchill as it appears in British Hansard, of March 5, 1952, where he said:
... I am not suggesting that it is sufficient for our safety in the event of war, and I rely on the rapidly growing and already overwhelming power of the United States in the atomic bomb to provide

External Affairs
tht ueterrents against an act of aggression during the period of forming a defensive front in western Europe.
Then of course there may be other reasons which deter Russia. It may be that Mr. Stalin is fearful of the Tito-inspired type of communism in southeast Europe or it may be that he is mindful of the thousands of Russian soldiers who deserted to the enemy when Hitler invaded the Ukraine. Unfortunately we cannot depend upon any of these reasons; if any of them is held by Moscow, it may disappear overnight in the minds of the men of the Kremlin.
This returns us to the premise, upon which apparently all of us are agreed, that collective security under NATO is a necessity. Banding together for collective security is as old as mankind, starting with the family alliance, progressing to city fortifications, then to the tribe, then to the country and finally to groups of nations. But NATO is one step farther. While combined military activity is almost as old as warfare, never before has military unification been attempted.
Naturally therefore numerous obstacles and difficulties were encountered in setting up NATO, particularly when that organization was so quickly thrown together. While many problems remain, many of the obstacles and difficulties which had appeared on agenda after agenda at NATO meetings were solved at Lisbon. Our minister has warned us that it is one thing to make a decision and another to implement it. But optimism was the keynote at Lisbon-not gloom. A new organization such as NATO-and I say this to the party directly opposite-needs boosting, not knocking.
While NATO is a necessity and will receive our full support as long as it is necessary, we still have faith in the United Nations. In his speech to the general assembly last fall the Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
I for one am not prepared to abandon hope of negotiations within the United Nations to ease the present tension.
The principles laid down at San Francisco in 1945 are still the hopes of mankind.
We have been warned it may be a long hard pull, in the struggle against communism. Tremendous tasks confront us. We must continue to give full support to NATO; we must see to it that the United Nations is retained as the hope of mankind; our program of assistance to the underprivileged countries of the world must be increased substantially, as soon as our defences have been built up to the minimum required for survival; meanwhile our home fires, and those of our allies, must be kept burning brightly.

All those tasks, gigantic as they be, are of one pattern. Whether we send an F-86E to Europe, or a carload of wheat to India, we are adding to the temple of peace which free men everywhere are striving to build.


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate at a very serious moment when, within the past few hours, an attempt has been made on the life of the West German chancellor. We in this house cannot make the same mistakes in connection with this attempt to build a free Germany as were made when the Weimar republic was allowed to disintegrate and to become destroyed, with the inevitable rise of a dictator.
What I intend to say about Germany certainly will not be popular in many parts of this house, but we must know who are our friends and we must endeavour not to make the mistakes we made before. We must at all costs endeavour to integrate Germany as a full partner with ourselves and the other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nothing less will do. There can be no subservient position for Germany. I say this because I believe it is true.
I spent some time over there last year. If there is any country in Europe which today is more aware of the dangers of communism, which is face to face with communist aggression to a greater degree than any other country, it is Germany. All you need to do is to live in western Berlin where the Russians are just across the street. There you will find communism in its greatest strength. You get away from Russian aggression in France, Italy and other countries, but there the communist party, perhaps born of ignorance, is strong.
There appears to be in this house and in all democracies the frightful fallacy that freedom does not have to be fought for. International freedom is not something that comes naturally. Throughout history international freedom has always had to be fought for. Unless we are prepared to fight for international freedom, it will be destroyed. While I regret what is happening to our economy in our effort to provide the necessary arms and military equipment, nevertheless I cannot support the amendment in any way, shape or form because I have seen aggression in action.
Before going on to what I have to say about western Europe I should like to refer to one problem which has been overlooked. Although I have not been brought up to date on this matter by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or the minister of external affairs, I am interested in knowing what is happening

on the other frontier against communism on the Danube. The frontier against communism in western Europe is to be found in middle Germany, but the other frontier, which is most important, is on the Danube. I hope that in due course this government will appoint a minister to Vienna.
I say that because there is no more active city on the continent of Europe than Vienna in the carrying on of the battle against communism. There is no more courageous government to be found, with the possible exception of the government of Berlin, than the government of Austria. That country is divided and must bear the insufferable occupation of the Russians. Much of the economy of the country is shut off from the western part. But there is no country in Europe which is doing so much today for freedom as the small republic of Austria. I do hope the government will make a statement as to what they propose to do or maybe what they are doing with regard to Austria.
The shape of military aggression in Europe has not been one where mass armies have been used. The Napoleonic wars, the attack in 1914 and the break through in 1940 were all made up of comparatively small numbers of extremely highly mobile forces with tremendous hitting power. If we are to expect aggression, that is the sort of aggression which historically has taken place in Europe.
What we know about Russia's intentions must be changed from month to month, but up to the present there does not seem to be that sort of force being prepared near the western frontier. That may or may not be so in a month's time, but it does not appear that that sort of force is being prepared.
However, we have the unfortunate fact that the potential of the Russian army, both European and Asiatic, is many times that which the western powers could create on a manpower basis. Therefore, if we are to prevent mass creation we must rely more and more on the instruments of war. The mere provision of manpower by a small country like Canada might be dangerous. That manpower has to be backed up by a tremendously increased striking power in the way of weapons of defence. It is regrettable that up until now that has been pitifully small, but that will be the subject of another debate. Weapons, the technical know-how, the ability to destroy the enemy must be an essential part of our Canadian preparedness.
The Russians have another weapon, the weapon of upsetting the economic life of a country by putting the military effort out of balance with the economic production. Today throughout the world the forces of mischief
External Affairs
are blowing in practically every quarter. Markets have been upset, it has been impossible to sell surplus supplies, and in many countries the economy is in grave danger. Therefore, we have to recognize the danger of upsetting the economic life of these countries.
Now, the suggestion put forward of economic aid is, from the humane point of view, perhaps a good thing, but looking at it from the realistic point of view, would it help a Europe today in which you have cartels, embargoes, trade restrictions, customs duties, currency restrictions and every conceivable type of restriction on trade? The Marshall plan and the excellent work that was done under Mr. Hoffman have prevented starvation. They have put the European continent back on its feet. Supposing we had, and I disagree that we have, the wherewithal to provide mass economic aid, would we in any way assist so long as the European continent maintains this system of international economy? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, we would not. The entire production of the North American continent, and, if we could get to it, the nearest fixed star, the entire production of that planet would not aid, so long as these countries will not trade with each other. Just so long as the countries on the European continent continue to set up embargoes against each other, and all these hideous restrictive devices which we have seen since the war, in my opinion nothing is going to save them. I say, therefore, despite the physical aid of the Marshall plan, despite the tremendous help in putting Europe on its feet, restoring plants and the wonderful things that have been done, I do not think you could help Europe without breaking down the economic heresies which are being continued at the present time.
General Eisenhower had something to say on that subject in a press dispatch of a comparatively recent date:
The requirement for a healthy and stable economy in western Europe is not merely of interest for this year or next year. It is a matter of the indefinite future. As time goes on, it seems obvious that it cannot gain strength and stability if it is to remain split up in a number of independent economies. There must be progress towards the unification of western Europe if the objective of permanent security and peace in the western world is to be realized.
That is what the supreme commander says, and he is probably the expert par excellence. His job is to preserve that continent, and he says that unless some integration of the European economy can be brought about- he does not say the job is hopeless, but he

External Affairs
says that the difficulties are tremendous. I quote again from General Eisenhower.
If someone would show me an easier, better answer to the safety and security of the western world, X would certainly be delighted, but I just cannot find it.
I shall add this. I talked to many governmental officials in Europe and I have yet to meet one who ever quarrelled with this theory. Just as long as we do not, politically, economically and in every other way, do everything possible to urge the integration of Europe, we shall not be able to have a prosperous economy on that continent. As long as there is not a prosperous economy, there will not be security. The economy cannot be made prosperous by continuous gifts, whether they are food, money, dollars or anything else. The salvation must come from the European continent.
It seems to me that has been the fallacy in so much of our talk about aid to Europe. The continent is richly endowed with natural resources, yet crisis after crisis takes place in the United Kingdom, in France and in Italy simply because they are trying to make an economic system work which has never worked.
Coming back to Germany, let me say that if we have to fight, we had better have on our side people who we know will fight. We had1 better have on our side people who know what communism is. We had better have on our side people who have experienced communist aggression of their country. Hon. members in this house: Unless you have seen the Russian army in control of a city, unless you have seen what communism can do to a country when it takes over, unless you have seen how that country can be destroyed until not one brick stands upon another, you cannot adequately conceive of the devastation that communism can bring about. Unfortunately, I have seen it. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we had better get people who can fight and who know what they are fighting for.
I had' the privilege last year of talking to a number of men who had been prisoners of war in Russia, who had fought against the Mongolian troops and who had fought outside of Stalingrad. They knew what they were up against. We are not playing for anything but keeps in this game. If we have any overseas policy, it must be to do everything possible to get ourselves allies who will produce and who will fight no matter what we may think about them, no matter what may have happened a few years past, and no matter how barbaric they were some years ago. Today we are fighting for our lives, so let us press forward for the integration of Germany as a full partner. As I have said,
IMr. Adamson.]
we have friends in Germany. We have friends in the German government. By talking appeasement, let us not allow that government to be destroyed. Let us not make the same mistake as we made over the Stresemann government. Let us make sure that the government is shown a co-operative attitude. Let us make every effort we can to strengthen the hand of that government.
Canada is not an occupying power. That fact should be stressed. We are paying for what we eat, I understand, where our troops are billeted in Germany. That fact should be made known. We are there to preserve the peace of Europe. That is all we are there for. We must therefore, in every way possible, make our occupational job as effective as possible. Not only must we provide troops but we must provide technical aid; and we must provide technical aid not only in Germany-because Germany is an extremely highly developed and technical country-but we must provide it elsewhere in the world. The story of Pakistan is an example.
That is how we can help. We can help the peoples of the world grow two blades of grass where one grew before. That can be done through technical aid. It cannot be done by giving them either food or dollars. We may, in an emergency, help out from time to time with famine relief; but that is not the permanent solution. The permanent solution is to have the nations of the world technically able, as far as possible, to produce to save themselves. Because of the very fact of our small population-despite our booming economy at the present time-and because of our peculiar position as a small nation next to a great nation, we cannot afford grandiose expenditures of millions and millions of dollars for aid all over the world. By so doing we destroy our own economy. With a destroyed economy, we can help no one.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. The name of Briand, whose idea it was, is revered throughout all Europe, with the possible exception of his own native France. That idea, that spark of a united Europe, that spark which somebody called the united states of Europe, that possible dream of a supranational state, is, in my opinion, the best hope for a European community free, economically sound and, above all, secure.
We in this country, in my opinion, can do nothing more helpful in the political field than to aid the Strasbourg assembly, thus aiding the united states of Europe, thus aiding that idea that Briand suggested many years ago, and in every way to do what we can to bring it into being. A divided Europe; a Europe broken up into small, economic

trading units; a small Europe broken up into units with impossible boundaries, with raw materials on the one side and industrial plants on the other side of them, can never be integrated into a unit which will fight and save itself. Unless that result is brought about, we in this country and on the North American continent shall continuously not only have to keep military forces to protect a Europe which cannot protect itself but to have an increasingly large amount of our economy devoted to the wasteful and hateful business of war.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said at the beginning of this debate that he would welcome expressions of opinion from all sides of the house. This debate has gone on now for two or three days, and I think it can be said that the minister has had an expression of opinion from all sides of the house. Whether he agrees with all that has been said, only he knows. But certainly it can be said, and I think truly said, that whatever our differences may be in this debate, we at least agree on one thing, namely, the need for peace in this world. We may differ in the methods by which we achieve or maintain peace, and we may have honest differences about it in this house; but the burning desire of all members, to whatever party they may belong, is peace, and I think the people of Canada should understand that.
Every question which comes up in the world today is dependent on peace. Our economic situation and our social situation depend on whether or not we can maintain peace in this world. I am persuaded that all peoples in this world, including those in Russia, desire peace. Why is it then that we are living in a situation where peace is in jeopardy every hour? The answer to that question should be given here, and in the brief address that I intend to make I shall try to answer it in so far as I am able.
I said last year, and I make no apologies for making the same statement now, that if Russia sincerely desired peace she could have it today, and have it on terms very favourable to her. Why then does she pursue her policy of blocking all efforts for peace? Why does she pursue her propaganda, denouncing our
External Affairs
way of life and our people and our efforts for peace? In my opinion there is only one answer to that, namely, the policy laid down by Lenin, the father of the Russian revolution, when he said that democracy or the free way of life and communism could not live together in this world, and either one or the other must be destroyed. The whole foreign policy of Russia ever since that time has been based on that theory. It is the answer to Russian tactics in the United Nations and in every committee of which she is a member.
Lenin also stated that when communism is weak is the time to talk peace and ask for peace, but always bearing in mind that communism cannot exist in this world alongside democracy; that when she makes peace or signs any pact of peace, it is only a temporary expedient to be cast aside when the expediency is over. I do not need to remind this house that that is what happened early in the last war when Mr. Molotov was sent to Berlin to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany. He did so because Russia at that time was afraid of Germany. When Poland was divided between Germany and Russia, Russia pushed her frontiers west as far as she could. She did that on the basis of expediency, because Russia has always traded space for time. She did not trust the Germans. She thought that by signing that pact she would at least delay the German attack, and she did.
She went into Poland, and Poland took the first brunt of the German attack. Russia retreated bit by bit, gradually wearing down the Germans. She was fighting for her life. All during that struggle we wanted to help her, and we did. We wanted to send her men in addition to munitions, and she refused. She did not want our men to come in contact with her people, because they would then become acquainted with our way of life, and it would possibly destroy the strength of the Kremlin in so fair as their peoples may have their eyes opened to our way of life.
Before going on I should like to pay a tribute to the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who spoke in this debate two days ago. He gave us a resume of what happened in the United Nations during the last session. If I could sum up what he said I would say his remarks were predicated on one point and one point only, namely, that the success of all the committees which were formed to help the people

External Affairs
in this world and to maintain peace was subject to Russian co-operation. I quote from his speech at page 759 of Hansard as follows:
It is fair to say. I think, that on the whole the recent session of the general assembly neither increased nor decreased the existing tension between the Soviet and the free world. On the other hand, a number of resolutions were approved which, if they can be put into effect, may serve to lessen that tension. In the main, their success will depend upon the desire of the Soviet union to make them work.
These are very serious words. Again he says at page 762:
Here for the first time almost all countries of the free world have co-operated in pooling their resources to give technical assistance to governments which are in need and which request it, but of course the Soviet bloc refused to participate, despite their constant professions of solicitude for the welfare of the peoples of the underdeveloped countries.
We are now living in a state of crisis.
Almost from week to week we have a crisis breaking out in one part of the world or another. I wish to examine, if I may, for a short space of time, the Korean situation. There we have our men, our Canadians, fighting alongside the other allied nations. It will be remembered that some time 'ago, when we were pushing the North Koreans back to the Yalu river, the Chinese came to their assistance and we had to retreat hurriedly back to about where we began, or perhaps a bit farther back. It was hoped then that we could have ended the Korean war on a note of victory. But China came in, and we had to retreat.
General Ridgway was appointed, and he went out there. He evolved a strategy of wearing down the enemy. We attacked and, bit by bit, by our superior gunfire it was said that we were destroying the Chinese army. In the words of the communiques of that time, we were chewing them up; we had them beaten to such an extent that China could not take much more.
What happened? Mr. Malik from the United Nations sounded out the nations on our side in that organization with respect to an armistice. We agreed, because we could not do anything else; and armistice negotiations have been going on in Korea for seven or eight months. There is no sign yet of a real armistice.
Why was that done? If you will remember the few words I spoke a few moments ago you will recall I said that it is the policy of Russia, when she is in difficulty, to sue for peace. The Chinese did not ask for an armistice; it was done through Mr. Malik, the Russian representative in the United Nations. We have in Korea today a situation described as a stalemate. During the

six or seven months the negotiations have been going on the communist forces in Korea have been strengthening their position, so that today we cannot drive them out -or, if so, only with tremendous losses which we cannot afford, and which it would be foolish to risk.
The statement has been made in the house and in the United Nations that our policy in Korea was to unify the whole country. No one can tell me here tonight that we can do that now. That policy enunciated in the United Nations stands as the United Nations policy for Korea. We shall have to back down from that policy sooner or later; and when we do, the United Nations as a policy making machine will get a very black eye, indeed.
I have no brief for General Mac Arthur; but whatever may be said of his military plans in Korea as to how to win the war, this much can be said, that his administration of Japan was brilliant in the extreme; and it has yet to be proven whether his strategy in Korea was wrong or otherwise.
Two years ago I drew attention to the island of Formosa and said that if it fell into communist hands the door would be thrown wide open to the Philippines. It was not a nice thing to say in the house at that time; because our policy was that of trying to keep out of Formosa and its troubles. But it is recognized today that we cannot afford to let Formosa go. And so the United States is taking over as the protector of that island, I
Why did Russia, the communists, attack in Korea? They wanted to gain Korea because it would be a dagger pointed at the heart of Japan. They know that Japan is a warlike nation, and they want Japan within the' communist orbit in the Far East. And I say1 here tonight, without fear of successful contradiction, that it was only the brilliant administration of General MacArthur that kept Japan where it is today.
To go on, now, to Indo-China. When we were chewing up the Chinese armies in Korea there was a lull in Indo-China. China had1 her hands full in Korea and she could not' supply the communist forces. We made headway there. But since these truce negotiations have been going on in Korea they have had time to renew their strength, with the result that we see communist activities breaking out now in Indo-China.
Reports coming from France are that they cannot very well carry on in Indo-China, and . there is a movement afoot for France to 'withdraw from that point. If that happens, then Thailand or Siam will go, and so will Burma, and we shall have then communist

influence right down on the border of the Federated Malay States. Can we then hold the Federated Malay States? I doubt very much if we can. And if we lose the Federated Malay States we lose the rubber and tin we so badly need for rearmament. We shall have communist influence right up to the front door of Indonesia.
Those are problems which are to the forefront today, and I must point them out if we are to have a true picture of the international situation as it now exists. India has her hands full. She and Pakistan are quarrelling over Kashmir. So India cannot be any great help to us. As a matter of fact her actions in the United Nations during the last session or two have indicated a policy of going it alone: she does not wish to get mixed up either with the west or with communism.
Coming to Persia, we have a situation where we have lost the use of its oil. Russia, with diabolical cleverness, has been urging the Persians to stand on their own feet and, with a cry of "Persia for Persians", we are denied the use of their oil. I do not think many members in the house realize just how serious that loss is to us, or how serious it will be if we ever get into a shooting war.
Then the crisis in Persia was followed by the crisis in Cairo. That has died down somewhat. Now we have a crisis in Tunisia. Where is it all going to end? We have adopted here a policy of peace through strength. That policy was adopted1 by all parties in the house. We need strength today as we never needed it before. The men who represent us at the United Nations must be strong. Those who represent us in the countries I have just mentioned must be strong, and we must back their strength. Any sign of weakness will be fatal now, and we may well lose any fight in which we engage.
All the attacks by Russia are directed to one source. Russia realizes where the strength of the United Nations stands. She realizes full well that there is one nation that stands for democracy, so that all her attacks today are directed' against the United States of America. Russia knows that if the United States weakens, then democracy throughout the whole world will weaken.
The United States has never wished world leadership; it was forced upon hbr. What that country does today may mean either peace or war in this world. Because of this position, we cannot afford to have the United States falter. We are bound to the United States hand and foot, not only for the defence of the North American continent, but for the defence of peace in the world.
External Affairs
Let us not here in this House of Commons snipe at the United States for what they are doing. We are not helping the cause of peace when we snipe at them; we are weakening it. Whether we agree or disagree with the United States policy, if we cannot applaud them then let us keep quiet. If we do not back the United States today, we lose; and if the United States goes down, we go down with it.
I am concerned over the spirit of petty nationalism growing up in this country. It is all very well here in the House of Commons to stick out your chest and say "We want Canada for Canadians." I am a new Canadian; but I came into this union, not for any petty benefits that may accrue to my province. We came into the union because we had vision as to what the union could do. And our coming in has strengthened Canada. We knew it would strengthen Canada; and by strengthening Canada we strengthen ourselves.
I am not asking here tonight for union between the United States and Canada; but I am asking for full co-operation with the United States, because in union there is strength. We must demonstrate that strength by a union of ideas and, backing up our thoughts with our actions, we must not give only lip service to union, but must live it. We in Canada must lift up our eyes. We must have world vision. Canada cannot live to itself alone. To adopt a policy of isolationism for this country would be to commit national suicide. I should like to quote from a dispatch which appeared in today's Ottawa Citizen quoting General Charles de Gaulle. While General de Gaulle is not a great favourite of mine, I think there is much food for thought in what he said. The article reads:
General Charles DeGaulle told a group of United States editors Wednesday that the west should act as if a Soviet attack was an immediate danger.
"Then if it happens, the west will be better prepared," said DeGaulle. "If it doesn't happen, then the Lord be praised."
When one of the party asked if the General expected a Russian attack in the near future, DeGaulle replied:
"I do not want, and I cannot make any predictions, but we must act as if this were an immediate threat."
He added that "the present situation cannot last for ever. We must oblige the Russians to renounce their plans for aggression."
DeGaulle criticized the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as being based on an overly narrow concept of defence.
"The danger is a world danger," he said, "and it must be met on a world scale, not merely in the North Atlantic. It should be organized by the three great western powers-the United States, Britain and France-in co-operation with Germany in Europe and with Japan in the Far East."

External Affairs
In my view co-operation or unity or whatever you have a mind to call it is vitally necessary in this world today if we are to defeat communism and therefore we should all be persuaded of the need for each and every one of us, not only talking union but living union. In that way we shall be doing our duty and we as Canadians will be taking our places alongside the peoples of other great nations who are fighting this battle for peace. Upon what we do here and how we do it may very well depend the peace of the world.
It is our duty as Canadians from the east to the west, whatever our racial origin may be, to make unity in Canada a living reality and thereby demonstrate our strength and that we are in this fight for peace and mean to see it through.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I congratulate the hon. member for Trinity-Conception (Mr. Stick) upon delivering a speech which has in it the ring of reality and which has given an indication of the fact that we are discussing no academic problem, that we are talking about survival itself. In the remarks which he has made he has brought to this chamber an atmosphere of reality-


An hon. Member:: And patriotism.


George Alexander Drew: External Affairs
briefly, and that is the implication of the words the minister used concerning the island of Formosa. He used words which, in that particular case, are not open to doubt.


Mr. Ferguson:: Would the leopards who sneaked out behind the curtains kindly talk less loudly?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know to whom the hon. member is referring.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: The noise, sir, is such that I do not know whether we are hearing about Formosa or Shanghai.


Mr. Speaker:: If there is any noise behind the curtains, all I can do is ask for co-operation of the whips to have it reduced.


George Alexander Drew: In the remarks relating to the island of Formosa, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made it clear that he did not believe, and therefore that the government did not believe, that any consideration should be given to the possibility of handing over the island of Formosa to China under its communist government, while there is continuing aggression in Asia by that government. There would have been no occasion to draw that distinction unless the minister had intended us to understand that, if the open acts of aggression of which China is so manifestly guilty at this moment were, in fact, terminated by some agreement emerging from the present negotiations in Korea, then this government would be ready to consider the possibility of handing over the island of Formosa to the control of the communist government of China. The minister goes farther, and he says he does not believe that the presence of a communist regime in China is any reason, in itself, why Formosa should not be handed over if that should be the conclusion.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this is not a subject that has anything to do with the support of Chiang Kai-shek or any other individual. This subject relates to millions of human beings living on the island of Formosa; it relates to eight million human beings who were living there before Chiang Kai-shek went to the island of Formosa. This implied suggestion that the Canadian government might be quite ready to be party to an arrangement under which the island of Formosa would be handed over, with its population, to the communist government in China lays down a principle which could have the most evil and dangerous consequences if it should ever be accepted by this or any other government in the western world. In those bloody years following the terrible decision at Munich how often was it repeated that never in the future would the word "appeasement" be written in letters of
(Mr. Drew.)
blood across the face of the world! Yet in what way would the handing over of Formosa differ from the handing over of the Sudetenland to the nazi government in Berlin following those discussions in Munich? The principle is the same, namely, that of dealing with millions of human beings as though they were pawns in a game of diplomacy where the cards are being dealt under the table.
There are those in this chamber and a great many outside of it whose memories go back to the high hopes with which everyone greeted, on November 11, 1918, the armistice which ended what had till then been the most terrible war in all history. It will be remembered that in the discussions which followed that armistice and preceded the gatherings at Versailles where there took place the discussions which resulted in the formulating of the treaty of peace and the drafting of the covenant of the league of nations, one of the great leaders of that time, Woodrow Wilson, over and over again emphasized the fact that if peace was to be preserved in the future the days of secret diplomacy must end and that nations must deal with each other on the basis of agreements openly discussed and openly reached with the knowledge of the people who would be affected by those agreements.
We want no secret agreements with regard to Formosa or any other country in the world. If we mean what we said in the charter of the United Nations, at San Francisco in the spring of 1945, the honour of every one of us is pledged to insist that there shall be no secret deals which hand human beings over to the cruel mastery of any dictatorship, such as those which have passed into the sorry pages of history or such as that which now, from Moscow, enslaves so many hundreds of millions of people. We want to be assured that in the course we follow we shall know what that course really is. If once again young Canadians or the youth of any other democracy with which we are now associated are to be called upon to bear arms in the defence of freedom, at least let us be able to tell them that they were not led to slaughter because of sordid trades which dealt with human lives as though they were only pawns in international arrangements of this kind.
To those eight million people living in Formosa freedom is just as dear as it is to us; and make no mistake about it, that freedom from the domination of Peking means the hope of avoiding a dreadful reality which we have not yet been called upon to contemplate here in Canada.
I speak of secret arrangements, and I do so for a particular reason. All the members of

this house will recall the emphasis that was placed by the government of Canada upon the advantage of the close association between the government of Canada and the government of the United Kingdom last year. 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. 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?
When that arrangement was disclosed in the House of Commons at Westminster a short time ago, it was the disclosure of an arrangement which greatly shocked the people of Britain, not so much because of the arrangement itself as because of the fact that it was an arrangement which had been made without the knowledge of the House of Commons and without the knowledge of the people of Great Britain. 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.
It is not enough for the government to say: we have the responsibility for policy and at some time, at our convenience, this policy will be placed before the House of Commons and the House of Commons can express its opinion. In this world of rapidly moving events which could so profoundly affect the lives of every one of us for years and scores of years to come, we should not at any time face the possibility that we may discover
External Affairs
that we are committed to a war under commitments of which we, as the people's, representatives, have been wholly unaware.
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will deal with this matter and will indicate just how far the Canadian government was informed as to the arrangements which were arrived at in Washington last year between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of the United States at the time Mr. Attlee and Mr. Morrison were there. I also hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will give us much more definite information than we have yet received about what actually took place at Lisbon. The Secretary of State for External Affairs cannot suggest that the members of the opposition alone are uncertain about the facts. Referring to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I find in the press headlines such as "State of utter confusion"; "A bundle of nothing".


Mr. Pearson:: Both from the Globe and Mail.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, from a newspaper which, has been very friendly in its relationship with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I feel sure that it will continue to be, friendly to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in cases when he does place before this house and the people of Canada the facts in regard to what is taking place. But I hope that no hon. member will suggest that it is any one newspaper that is expressing this concern. The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicates by the nod of his head that he agrees with me that there were newspapers much closer to home that would not be regarded as Conservative and that also expressed their uncertainty as to what was really intended by these remarks. There has, been a fairly uniform uncertainty expressed as to exactly what was meant by some of the statements that were made.
I do emphasize again that there must be the most complete disclosure-there can be no reason for anything else. After all, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was chairman of the council meeting at Lisbon. He accepts responsibility for the issuing of the statement at the termination of that meeting; he accepts responsibility for the statement which has been described in such critical terms by the London Times, by the Economist, by the Spectator and by other publications in Great Britain which have a very high and long-established reputation for accuracy of comment.
If it was correct for the Secretary of State for External Affairs either in his capacity as the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs or as chairman of that council, to issue a statement which informed the people

External Affairs
of the western world, and ^particularly of the North Atlantic community, that we would have fifty divisions toward the end of 1952, atad that a hundred divisions were expected b'y 1954, then surely it is equally correct, and in fact it is necessary, that we know how these are to be made up.
; Mr. Pearson: No such statement was ever issued.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I shall let the statements speak for themselves. The state-ihents are quite clear; and now the distinction that is drawn is the distinction between the twenty-five divisions that may be anticipated this year in a state of active organization, in the European area, and twenty-five divisions in some other state of battle readiness. We have not yet had a definition, a satisfactory definition, of what state of battle readiness is implied. We have been told that, in spite of all the headlines as to the undertakings that had been mutually agreed upon at Lisbon, our commitment still remains at one brigade in Europe; but there is more to it than that. If the commitment is twenty-five divisions in being in Europe and another twenty-five divisions in reserve, have we made commitments as to any forces in reserve? If we have, what are these commitments? We have a right to know; we have a duty to know. The young men and young women who are being asked to go into uniform have a right to know, and we have a duty to them to make sure that they do know exactly what the nature of the commitments is with which they will be so intimately associated. There *Was also the dispatch, which has been repudiated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, to the effect that financial commitments involving $300 billion were being undertaken. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that is not so. Well, if that is not so, what was the figure? Surely there was some figure. Surely these reports were not related to something that was not being discussed at all at Lisbon. After all, there was a very large staff of public relations officials to brief the press and to keep them informed of the trend of events. If it was not $300 billion, what was it? We should know what the total figure was, and what Canada's part of that is, not just for this year, not just in relation to some item that is to be included in the immediate estimates before us, but for whatever length of time that undertaking embraces. Anything less would mean that hon. members would be called upon to pass on estimates that will be placed before them without the knowledge that is essential for any appropriate decision. (I wish to deal with the editorial in the London Times because it has, in a substantial

measure, been made the basis of the amendment now before us, and to which I shall presently refer. That editorial in the London Times is headed "The Phantom Army". The London Times was represented at Lisbon by one of its most highly qualified men. He was being briefed on what was taking place, and the London Times is not in the habit of writing careless or reckless editorials. Because of that fact, and because of the fact that throughout its long period of history the London Times has been so closely associated with the movement of history itself, I propose to read into the record a substantial part of the editorial, since it relates directly to the amendment now before us.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: The Toronto Star has a very important part to play also in the commonwealth of nations.


George Alexander Drew: The hon. member is at liberty to quote the Toronto Star on any occasion he sees fit. I am quoting a very reliable publication known as the London Times. The editorial is headed: "The Phantom Army", and I quote:
It is difficult to understand either the meaning or the purpose of the communique published by the council of the North Atlantic treaty in Lisbon. This states in words which seem almost to have been chosen for their ambiguity-they have no other virtue-that the member nations will provide this year "approximately fifty divisions in appropriate conditions of combat readiness." Only the most ingenuous will suppose that General Eisenhower will in fact have fifty divisions ready and able to fight in Europe by the end of the year. The exact figures are rightly secret, but the present force is generally believed to be much less than half that number. Since no German divisions will be raised this year, since contributions from Greece and Turkey are not included in this total, and since France has been allowed to reduce her contribution from fourteen to twelve, it is not easy to see how this figure can be substantially increased. Certainly Britain is not going to send more divisions to Europe this year, and it would be surprising indeed if the United States were to fill the gap. The explanation probably is that the phrase "in appropriate conditions of combat readiness" is meant to include not only divisions fully trained and equipped for war but other divisions half-trained and half-equipped, reserve divisions like our own territorial units, and yet other divisions which so far exist only on paper. No doubt it is necessary to plan for such an expansion, but it is less obvious why it should be announced in this airy fashion.
Presumably the announcement was meant to impress someone; but it will not impress the Russians, who know very well the true state of affairs and who have the sense to realize that any real plans for real divisions would be kept secret. Indeed this imaginative total, with the still more imaginative promise of 85 or 100 divisions in two years time, seems to contain the maximum amount of provocation with the minimum amount of deterrent effect.
That is as far as I propose to quote from the editorial, which goes on at some length to indicate the nature of the statement.

But it does point out that the trouble was that there was apparently a desire to combine security with political propaganda.
Now political propaganda at this stage is' not good enough. And this statement, remember, is a statement for which the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as chairman of the council, accepts responsibility. I believe an explanation is due members of the house and due other nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, through this house, as to exactly what the circumstances were under which that strange document became public, and why it was that this phantom army was paraded before the world to lure into a false sense of security our own people, and to irritate the Russians, who know perfectly well it is not accurate, and who certainly will repeat to their own people the fact that this is a declaration that the North Atlantic treaty nations are greatly expanding their forces for the possibility of aggression.
We know it is not aggression. We know that not only would we not contemplate aggression, but that we are utterly incapable of aggression. We know perfectly well that it is beyond the thought of anyone living in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, France or any other of the member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization even to dream of aggression. But what every one of us is hoping for, and what every one of us is prepared to support, and what everyone wants done is the preparation of real divisions, real defence, so that there may be no war, so that peace may be more than a hope, and so that we may march forward in security to a time when even those nations now beyond the iron curtain may join us in the freedom we wish to preserve in this world.
It will not be done however either by misleading our own people or by issuing to Russia challenging statements which are not supported by the facts.
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. 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):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out-
27, 1952
External Affairs


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just to have the record straight; I would have been happy to move it but, actually, I seconded it. It was moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright).


George Alexander Drew: I accept the hon. member's correction. I was looking at the name appearing immediately above the amendment. As the hon. member has said, it was moved by the hon. member for Melfort:
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."
That amendment, Mr. Speaker, can only be interpreted as meaning a great deal more than the words themselves indicate. The discussions which have taken place make it quite clear that this is a challenge to the government in regard to the policy it has been adopting, as distinguished from the detailed manner in which that policy may have been carried out or not carried out. 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 efEect, our preparations for defence should be restricted, and greater attention should be paid to providing economic assistance to the nations of Europe.
The party I lead has no intention of supporting any proposition, direct or implied, that the preparation now taking place is too much. The Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated his hope, in the speech he made, that before this debate was closed it would be clear that the members of this house are one in their determination that Canada shall take its full part in those collective measures designed to prevent war and to preserve peace.
I wish no doubt to be left in the mind of any hon. member or of any Canadian that members of the Conservative party in this house subscribe to that principle without reservation. We have indicated our position; we certainly withdraw in no way from that position. Our concern is that we shall take our full part along lines that will make the most effective use of whatever resources of this country are committed to that collective purpose by the government of Canada.
In saying that we want more information, I am saying so in the hope that before this debate is closed the foundation will be laid for a discussion of national defence, with knowledge of those commitments to which the preparation for national defence is

External Affairs
related. I do not subscribe to the interpretation of some of the statements made by the leader of the C.C.F. party, and others, which was placed upon those statements by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; but I do simply wish to indicate that already in this house I have made it clear that we do not agree with their statement, that we think it was an unfortunate statement, and moreover that it was a statement which is inconsistent with the obligations we have undertaken and which were unanimously supported by members of the house.
I wish to point out also that I think the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) inadvertently drew a meaning from the editorials in the London Times, the Economist, and the Spectator which those editorials do not contain. The editorials were not critical of the targets; they were critical of the statement that those targets were going to be reached before it was possible for them to be reached.
Nowhere in the editorial in the London Times, nowhere in the editorial in the Economist and nowhere in any of the other editorials along similar lines have I seen any suggestion that the targets were too high. But what this editorial in the London Times, to which I have referred, says, is that the statement issued from Lisbon was unwise and improper because it gave the impression that these targets were going to be reached sooner than they could be reached, and that on the one hand they misled our own people and lured them into a false sense of security while, on the other, it could only be provocative to the Russians, without in any way misleading them as to what the facts actually are.
No; 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. Nevertheless we certainly do not challenge the right or the propriety of any such amendment. I simply wish to make it clear that we shall not vote for that amendment, that we do assert our support of the principles which have been enunciated, and that we return to the statement regarding the principles of NATO which met with approval when they were enunciated in this house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

In so far as we adhere to the principle of collective action to prevent war, I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs will at all times receive the support of every member of the Conservative party sitting in this House of Commons. It is because we want to see that principle implemented in terms of reality that we are asking now that he take this house into his confidence and tell us what the facts really are, that he remove the uncertainty to which great publications like the London Times, the Economist and others in our own country have referred in words that leave no doubt about the confusion which now exists.
If we are going to be called upon to vote billions of dollars to be provided by the taxpayers of Canada let us be able to tell the taxpayers of Canada what those dollars are being spent for. Above all, let us not be in the position where it can be said that anything that is done in this house is justification for the proposition that diplomacy is the mother of deception. If we are going to respect the diplomacy by which we are represented in the councils of the world, if we are going to respect the diplomacy of the nations which are joined in this great undertaking to prevent war, let us put an end to secret under-the-table deals. Let us have the facts out in the open. On that basis this house and the people of Canada will stand behind the government if it really carries out the undertakings that it makes.


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, most of the speeches during this debate have centred on the work done at the last meeting of the United Nations in Paris and the report made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which met in Lisbon, as well as on the situation in the Far East and assistance to underdeveloped countries. The government's position on these questions has been expressed clearly by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and his parliamentary assistant, and I shall make only a few references to some of the statements made by members on these questions before I deal with other aspects of the international situation.
Before I took the floor the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) addressed the house.
I must confess that each time the gentleman gets up I take great pleasure in listening.
I admire his wonderful voice, his imposing bearing. My pleasure would be nearly perfect if the ideas which his words are intended to impart were as great, as judicious and as weighty as the voice that expresses them is nice and deep and melodious.

The first part of the hon. gentleman's remarks dealt with a statement previously made that new policies had been announced by the minister of external affairs outside this house. I quite agree that that would not be proper because previously I criticized another member of the cabinet for doing that. I think the answer to this part of the hon. gentleman's speech can be found on page 662 of Hansard of March 21, and therefore I do not have to deal with it further.
The second part of his speech dealt with the statement issued by the department of publicity of NATO after the Lisbon meeting.
I imagine that that statement had been weighed and considered by the proper responsible officials and represented the views and thoughts of the leaders of that organization.
I think everybody in Canada will understand that that was a statement for NATO, of NATO, the responsibility for which rests with the chairman of NATO. I think the statement can be defended in itself. I think the statement is good and that the minister of external affairs will be able to make it stand on its own feet. As far as we in this house are concerned, I think the way we should deal with it is to just realize that at that time the minister was acting in his capacity- a higher capacity because it concerns a supranational organization-as head of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and not in his capacity as a member of the Canadian government. I am sure that when he winds up the debate the minister will be able to speak for himself and I have no brief to defend him at this time.
Criticism has been voiced in certain quarters as to the so-called insufficient part taken by Canada in helping the economy of other nations who are members of NATO. We have been told that the United States are doing much more than we could do, and that we should emulate them. I am all in agreement with those who want to provide economic aid in order to prevent the spread of communism among European nations, but I do suggest that the problem must be tackled realistically, having in mind not only our mutual security but above all our own security and our own welfare. Our first duty is to Canada and to Canadians.
No matter how much we want to implement article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, which is the article dealing with the understanding among the members to help one another, to eliminate conflicts in international economic policies and so on, we must realize the far greater importance of defending one another against possible threat from other nations or 55704-56
External Affairs
groups of nations who may want to impose their imperialistic domination or their ideology of government on the western world.
Canada's share in the NATO economic program should be commensurate with our ability to pay, with our income and with our population. I would not for one minute suggest that we should not assume our full share of the joint preparedness to resist attack; I would not suggest that we should not help less fortunate nations. But I do object to our overburdening our people, as we would have to do were we to carry out all the suggestions made by hon. members. Among those suggestions is the suggestion that we should make available free of charge to other member nations of NATO certain raw materials and basic commodities. The fact is that the sale of those articles ensures our own economic balance and guarantees the welfare of our own people.
We have entered, and rightly so, an era of mutual help among nations. We are opposing Russian communism as well as Chinese communistic dictatorship. But that does not mean that we should endanger unduly our own program of social security at home. There is a limit beyond which we cannot go without threatening our national economy. I think on the whole Canada's program has been realistic and well balanced. Year after year we have voted more and more funds to ensure a minimum of social security to our own people. Not only have I approved of all of this; I would like to see it expanded. I have oftentimes said that aid should be provided for invalids, as well as a system of health insurance for those whose health is impaired.
For the three years starting in 1950 our defence program, whether at home or for the fulfilment of our obligations abroad, first in Korea and now in the European sphere of activity, will involve an expenditure of over $5,000 million. Even if the potential of our country is extremely vast, would it be right to increase our commitments without due regard to our ability at this time to pay both for our own program of social security and for defence here and abroad?
Furthermore, we should not minimize what we have already given in the way of assistance to other NATO countries. In the last years this has amounted to $320 million, which is of course exclusive of the $25 [DOT] 4 million voted for the Colombo plan and our own share of $3-2 million of the cost of administration of NATO. There may be other amounts which I have not been able to ascertain, and no doubt the minister will give them when he closes the debate.

External Affairs
One member has suggested that we should expand our food production and give it away to member nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That would be along the lines of what we did when we gave Great Britam $3,000 million during the war, and it would all have to be paid by the Canadian taxpayer. I wonder how much the carrying out of this and other suggestions would mean in taxes over the years to come and in an increase in the national debt which would have to be looked after by coming generations.
Apart from the United States, which is the most powerful and wealthiest of our allies; apart from the great empires of yesterday, the United Kingdom and France, who are still vastly wealthier than we are, Canada is the one nation of the world who has spent more in a most unselfish way, both during the last war and the present world crisis that is also called the cold war, than any other nation. I would even say she is spending more than many other wealthier nations on this hemisphere to build up the joint defences of the western democracies, and to help the less fortunate countries.
I think that we all agree that what we have done is sound policy, even if our share has been greater than that of many. But I do not like to see what we have done minimized, as has been done in different quarters in this house. 1 doubt if it would be in the interests of our country or our allies to endanger our own economic position in the hope of giving more encouragement to others, as has been urged. In considering our commitments for defence or economic aid, one must take a proper outlook and consider, not only the day to day incidents that affect the international situation, but the over-all picture. This global struggle is totally different from anything history has so far revealed. This so-called cold war may last longer than some may think. It may well be that soviet strategy is to act in such a way as to make this unhealthy state of affairs last interminably.
I have here a clipping from the Montreal Gazette of July 26, 1951, and it confirms what I have just said about the possible length of this cold war. It reads:
. . . the western world . . . may suddenly realize that it has been fighting world war III for years and never knew it.
Certainly any such recognition has seemed far away from most public statements by most public figures. For them another world war has been a dim, far-off event, the date of which (for reasons never entirely clear), is generally about seven years away. As for the struggle now taking place, that is never THE war. It is always a struggle that will be contained. The assurance is given that there are no imminent signs that Russia intends to launch another world war.

But this struggle in Korea, whatever it may be called, suggests that even if Russia never launches a massive world war of the old, orthodox Germanic type, it may still fight a war around the world of a new unorthodox type. And if Russia develops a new type of world war, it may be able to outflank all the preparations that the west has been making for a war that may never be fought.
The article goes on:
Indeed Russia, while fighting its new type of world war III, can exploit to the limit the west's anxiety not to open a world war of the massive and universal type. Russia can be exceedingly provocative, as it certainly was in Korea. But it will count upon the west immediately saying that there is every hope that this war will not spread into a general conflict.
In this way Russia can go on fighting around the world, using open field aggression at one point, as in Korea: using tenacious guerrilla fighting in another, as in Burma and in Malaya; using infiltration and incitement in another, as in Iran; dangling appeals to nationalist unity in yet another, as in Germany; . . .
By fighting world war III in this tenacious but piecemeal manner, Russia could force the west to fight on Russia's terms, while the west prepares for a type of war that Russia may never invite and which the west would be most reluctant ever to launch. The west may be manoeuvred into fighting Russia's kind of world war III, while saying all the while that it is not a world war at all.
For Russia nothing could be better. While the west stockpiles the weapons of mass destruction, Russia could pursue its technique of mass exhaustion.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, while we must do our part by helping to prevent other nations from falling prey to communism wherever we can, I suggest we would be remiss in our duty if we failed to keep conditions in our own country such that our population will continue to enjoy the present standard of living. That is the best guarantee that our own people will feel contented with their present form of government, and their present way of life.
Before I conclude the first part of my remarks, I should like to point out that Canada is the only country of which I know where the opposition parties complain that the government has not sufficiently burdened the country with international commitments, our obligations to NATO or other international bodies. Everywhere else, including the United States, opposition parties have tried to cut down their countries' commitments. Even in Great Britain, the left wing of the Labour party tries to cut that country's expenditures earmarked for defence. When one reads the reports by British, French and United States foreign correspondents, one sees that the trend in most countries is to criticize the commitments for economic aid or for defence purposes as too high, and not to minimize them as we have witnessed here. We can, therefore, conclude that the Canadian government's program, as I said earlier, is well balanced and sufficiently generous at the moment. If

the people of Canada do not want, as I said a moment earlier, to be overburdened with taxes in the years to come or even today, how much more could we do than is provided for in the government's program?
During the course of this debate we have heard an hon. member state what, fortunately, only a small group of people in my province are saying. I feel it my responsibility, however, to mention it, so that such false and dangerous reasoning may not spread. The tenet of this thesis is that prayers may assure peace, and that preparedness for defence is the sure way to war. The hon. member said "Peace must be deserved and earned by our prayers". I would be the last one to deny anyone the right to pray for peace. I would be the last one to discourage a person from doing so. But I say that anybody who would meet the modern weapons or the powerful armies of those who threaten the peace of the world merely by prayers would not be allowed to pray very long if they survived the onslaught or if ever Soviet Russia ruled the world.
I quite agree with the hon. member when he states that if the leaders of the nations of the world, "instead of sowing the seeds of discord, hatred and revenge through their speeches and the newspapers in their pay, would put into practice God's supreme command, 'Love thy neighbour', there would be more peace and happiness on earth and the din of war would subside." But this noble attitude would have to be two-sided to have any effect, and in the present state of the world we have very little evidence that the other side intends to behave so nobly. If a peaceful citizen, Mr. Speaker, goes along a street and is suddenly faced by a big bully who jumps on him and tries to knock him down, even if he kneels down to pray I think he will just offer a better angle to the man who wants to strike him. If that fellow expected he might meet that big bully at that corner, I think what he ought to do would be to get a few friends to join him in his walk, so that seeing many ready to support one another the big bully would not dare to attack them. That is what we are doing with NATO. We are ganging together to prevent a big bully from jumping on us when we do not want him to do so. The NATO countries are combining their strength and force in order to resist jointly rather than be knocked down separately.
At school we all learned the famous maxim "si vis pacem, para bellum." I think it is still eminently practical as long as we translate it, "if you want peace to be maintained, make sure your defences are adequate."
55704-56i
External Affairs
I think it is also misleading for that hon. member to say that "we have forfeited a part of our sovereignty in favour of a supranational sovereignty which is subject to the whim of circumstances and to the dictates of the financial leaders interested in their gold mining enterprise or their munitions plants, and we are fostering internationalism at the expense of patriotism." This is not only misleading; it is false. It is a most dangerous theory to propagate and when my hon. friend, to substantiate another of his arguments, quotes' Pierre Cot, a former French minister of whom the least we can say is that be is a fellow traveller, he plays the game of the very people whom I am convinced he must of necessity abhor.
The United Nations is far from being perfect, we all agree. I would not be one to say that the fault is all on one side. However, any student of world affairs who has at heart our democratic way of life and our institutions will recognize that the stumbling block to demobilization and the bringing about of peaceful conditions in the world has been Soviet Russia and her satellites. However imperfectly the United Nations may work, it constitutes the only point of contact we can maintain with the U.S.S.R. I think it is preferable for all concerned to meet these, people at the conference table rather than in a shooting war that would give a stunning blow to humanity, whoever may emerge as the victor.
My hon. friend should know, I think, that no western leader wants war. I am quite sure he would also recognize that the leaders of the Canadian government-in fact I shall gladly say the leaders of all parties in this house-do not want war. But he should also recognize that they would fail in their duty if they did not meet the situation that faces the world and our country today with appropriate measures to ensure our defence and the mutual security of the western world on which our own security greatly depends. When one ponders over the international situation at large, many other and most important considerations force themselves upon, us. What are the chances of avoiding an armed conflict at the present time is evidently the foremost. According to me, neither the United States and the western democracies- or call them the North Atlantic treaty nations, if you which-nor Russia and its satellites wish a shooting war or intend to start one voluntarily, but this state of mind is not enough to guarantee that we shall not have one.
In 1914 Germany might not have precipitated a war had it been convinced that Britain and the commonwealth would enter

External Affairs
the war and it would certainly have waited had it foreseen American intervention. In 1939 Hitler might not have gone ahead had the United States taken the stand they took in 1941, and had Hitler been convinced that eventually he would have to face at the same time the combined forces of the United States, the U.S.S.R., joined to the British commonwealth, the war might have been averted. This is the reasoning that is today at the basis of the determined joint action of the North Atlantic treaty nations and of all other united nations which might join them if war started. This is our best assurance that we may avoid a conflict. However, no matter how improbable it is that any of the two blocs might start a war voluntarily, the danger persists that they may be drawn into one by any move undertaken at a given point on the globe. The risk arises in a way from the indetermination of the zones of influence considered important by the opponents and the undefined interest one side may have to prevent a given area from falling within the field of action of the other. Such was the case in Korea. It is evidently to be deplored that the lives of Canadians, Americans and citizens of other United Nations countries should be risked or even sacrificed in that fight. But it is recognized that had not the United States and the United Nations taken the stand they did there would have been no limit to the expansion of Soviet domination in the Orient.
In Europe the situation is more clearly defined and the determination of the western democracies, synthetized by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and by the Council of Europe, is manifested in such a way as to leave no doubt as to what action on the part of the Soviet may precipitate war. There remains the question of Yugoslavia that poses a grave problem. Some countries might hesitate to risk war to prevent one powerful communist country from overruling a smaller communist country impoverished by the last war and largely undeveloped by its previous so-called democratic rulers. Yet during the last war we did not hesitate to ally ourselves with the U.S.S.R. in order to defeat nazism and fascism. I personally think that our own interest today lies in preventing the domination of Yugoslavia by Russia. Once that domination was effected, the supremacy of the Mediterranean would no longer be ours and Turkey and Greece, who are, in the first case an already powerful ally and in the second, a most important bastion of defence, would both be in danger, not to say sacrificed. Anybody who has been in touch with Yugoslav leaders or with Yugoslav officials in their own country, as I have been, comes back convinced that even if these people

are not pro-American and if they are still profoundly Marxist, they are even more antiRussian; that they are determinedly nationalist and know that their survival as an independent nation depends on their co-operation with the western democracies. It should not take any of us very long to consider the factors involved and to understand that it is in our own interest to prevent their country from being overrun by the soviets.
Once all spheres of danger have been the object of precise determination, there remains one important factor that we cannot overlook. For the Russians, the allied determination may constitute a temptation to strike more quickly in the hope of winning. They know their present military superiority and they might hope that if this short-term superiority might compensate for their lower industrial strength, they might win. Yet such reasoning was the undoing of Hitler, and the Politburo does not usually act on the advice of astrologers or crystal gazers. If their knowledge of the long-term superiority of the western nations outbalances their immediate military strength, war may be indefinitely postponed.
Their last move, Mr. Speaker, was their new approach to the question of German unity, which brings me to the last point of my remarks, namely, the dilemma that has faced American, British and French statesmen in the last four years: how to deal with Germany. This, more than any committee work at the United Nations, might be the decisive factor determining the fate of Europe in the years to come, and one of the most important elements in the over-all international situation.
The allied determination to help arm Germany as part of the whole European defence has been the most vivid topic of speculation, especially in Germany and in France, as I gathered during a stay in both countries this last fall. There is no denying that the French have not ceased fearing the possibility of a resurgence of German superiority in Europe and it is quite easy to understand this fear. Harold Callender, chief of the New York Times Paris bureau, in his paper recently gave us a good analysis of the French reaction to the American and British attitude concerning the rearmament of Germany. I recommend its reading to all hon. members since I can, unfortunately, give only one or two quotations. He says of the French:
They are worried by the prospect of the rearming of Germans and of the western world. They are also worried by the economic burden placed upon their convalescent economy by their war in Indochina and their commitments for defence in Europe.

Later in the article he says:
If Americans sometimes feel baffled by the double task of maintaining peace and economic stability, they may imagine the far greater sense of frustration that the French feel when facing similar tasks while lacking both the favourable geographical position and the incomparable resources and power of the United States.
And later:
It was the assurance of the United States support that led the French to take the lead in trying to unite western Europe economically and politically. It was the sudden insistence of the United States upon rearming German units that dismayed the French and led to a hasty compromise between what the French thought were incompatible American policies-a desire to unite Europe and a simultaneous desire to risk alienating France by recruiting a German force . . .
Thus the French are asked to become the cornerstone of a stronger western Europe while at the same time being the cornerstone of the defence of southeast Asia. They say officially though reluctantly that they will try to fill both roles if sufficient United States aid is available.
It was while the French were wondering how they could meet these two heavy tasks that the German question became suddenly acute, first when the United States proposed to rearm the Germans and recently when the Germans boldly stated their stiff price for agreeing to rearm. This brought all the latent French fear of Germany to the surface . . .
It is the fear of both the military power they might acquire, as the French see it, as the result of United States impatience to build up European defences, and of the economic and political power that might come from the new freedom and sovereignty to be accorded to the west German state...
In these circumstances it is perhaps natural for the French to fear that the United States, thinking mainly of defence, might prefer Germany to France as the cornerstone of western Europe. Some Frenchmen recall that once before, at the end of the first world war, the west granted the Germans a limited army from which militarism again grew.
The allied determination to help Germany has created such a problem that all the statesmen of western Europe are pondering over this question and devising, day after day, new ways of approach that may lead to a favourable solution of this problem. Drew Middleton, chief of the New York Times bureau in Germany, also has some interesting comments which I should like to quote. He says:
The United States is chiefly responsible and can claim a major share of the credit for the revival of Germany, if, on the account books of history, credit is due. It is also a development that raises serious problems for Europe and ultimately for the United States, problems that must be weighed against the advantages of adding Germany, temporarily at least, to the western allied side.
The most important of these problems centers around the fear and mistrust of Germany that remain in Europe, and to a lesser degree in the British Isles, and the efficacy of the measures already taken by the United States, Britain and France to ensure that Germany does not again become a threat to Europe's security.
Then later on he states:
Yet, despite the intricate apparatus set up to bind Germany to Europe-the Schuman plan, the European defence community and the council of Europe
External Affairs
-grave doubts exist on the subject of Germany's suitability and reliability as a partner.
Such doubts rest, not on any great hostility to the west German government of today, headed by Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, or on the attitude of that government toward European co-operation, but on the reluctance of Europeans to accept either that government or that policy as representing the real Germany. In a few years the world will be dealing with another government and there is no guarantee that this future government will be any more willing to accept the treaties of 1952 than was the nazi government to maintain the Europe constructed between 1918 and 1925.
The attitude of German governments of tomorrow is the question mark, and offers dangerous possibilities. Visitors to Germany come back with the feeling that Adenauer is perfectly honest and sincere in his dealings with the western leaders. Election results show that at this moment a majority of German voters are behind him; but would that majority and support persist after the departure of the occupation forces? This remains to be seen. I think, however, that my other conclusions about Germany may differ from those reached this afternoon by my friend, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). No matter how correctly the German authorities act, you sense a constant hostility to the occupation and I suppose it is inevitable. It is less evident, I would say, against the British and the French, but it is quite open against the Americans. I will admit, through personal observation in Germany, that the irritations may well be motivated.
One must realize that never has so much been demanded of a private soldier in a foreign land as from the American G.I. in Germany. Diplomacy and courtesy are hardly to be expected from a man ill-prepared for the feeling of almightiness he gets from a privileged position in a former enemy's land. I am glad to see from the reports we have had recently that the feeling towards our Canadian troops seems to be better. Anyway this is so according to our defence information services. I am glad of that. Irritations against more or less irresponsible and juvenile attitudes or behaviour by some elements of the American troops could hardly explain however the opinions of so many Germans who side with Schumacher, only because he rings a more Chauvinistic note than Adenauer, or of so many more who side with the neo-nazi leaders. I, for one, fear that the average German has not yet understood, and that his mentality has little changed from that of the Germans of 1933 who helped bring Hitler to power. I will not enter into details and give also the feeling one brings from a visit to the crematorium and the concentration camp of Dachau, since we must overlook

External Affairs
a lot in a people we must keep on our side in our present need for European defence.
The Russian move, offering to back up German unity and offering to believe in the purification of the Wermacht and the former nazis, offers new and dangerous possibilities. Carl Sulzberger, writing from Paris last week said, and I am not choosing my authority from French-speaking writers, who I might say are more prejudiced because they feel more the immediate danger, but from an American correspondent:
But the west certainly wishes to avoid two obvious potential risks:
(1)	That such a unified, bitter and dynamic land would be enticed into a marriage of convenience with the Soviet bloc, or
(2)	That the Germans, wooed by both power coalitions, would keep bidding up the price for future collaboration until they regain continental ascendancy.
Later on he says:
Nationalists and militarists dream of a new and militant role in which Germany can assume the position of arbiter between east and west.
That in my opinion is what is dangerous and what is to be feared. Finally, analysing the present move on the part of the Russians, Sulzberger says:
For the third time in three decades the Politburo is openly courting Germany. Thirty years ago, at Bapallo, the Bolshevik envoys concluded a series of clandestine negotiations with an alliance with the German republic. Indemnity claims were renounced. Economic agreements were concluded. And secret military compacts permitted the professional Reichswehr to rebuild.
That policy, eleven- years later, boomeranged against Moscow when Hitler came to power and began his new quest for empire which resulted in the second world war.
In 1939, hoping to steer the Fuehrer's ambitions westward, the U.S.S.R. again gambled on a proGerman policy. Foreign ministers Molotov and Ribbentrop concluded what was virtually an alliance and Hitler confidently began a global conflict ending with the destruction of most of European Russia.
When the nazi empire collapsed and Europe's traditional backbone was broken, Moscow appeared content to see the amputation of Germany for an indefinite period. It sought to communize its portion of the occupied Reich, to remilitarize the east, and- block recovery in the west.
We have now this last attempt, and this promise of accepting members of the nazi party and the Wermacht. This is a new bid to bring about German unification in the hope that this country may one day unite with Russia.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say the principal aim of Europe and of the western world must be to unite to remain free even if in the process of doing so we may gather strange bedfellows and unreliable ones but for Europeans it might be harder than for us. They are facing such a situation that if they IMr. Picard.]
want to survive as free and independent peoples they must solve their problems together while all their historical tradition has been to solve them against one another.
Since the dissolution of the Roman empire, the history of Europe has been the history of wars between European states, and the only attempts at unification were intended to bring about the hegemony of one nation over others.
European nations must, to survive, learn to unite in order to stay free, and leadership must come from this side of the Atlantic. This leadership must take into account every factor and it is the duty of the leaders of western democracy to act prudently.
As far as we in this house are concerned we can do nothing less than support the government's decisions which, on the whole and up to now, appear to be wise and moreover inevitable.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Mr. Speaker, for a comparative novice to the traditions and systems of this parliament it is at times difficult to appreciate exactly what a motion or a resolution means or implies. I candidly admit that I am still in the class of a novice, but I believe it is one of the best established principles that an amendment to the motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the chair in order that supply may be voted to Her Majesty is definitely a vote of want of confidence. If that is the case-and it is-I believe that in my short parliamentary career this is the first time that we have had a major vote of want of confidence moved against the Canadian government, based on foreign policy.
I do not know how far back in Canadian history it would be necessary to go before we could find a major test of strength, a major want of confidence resolution, based on external affairs, but we have it today. That means that the boasts which I have been proud to make, and which I think private members from every party in this house have doubtless been proud to make over the past few years, the boasts that whatever may be done elsewhere we in Canada are at least united in our foreign affairs, united in our front to those who would oppose us, can no longer be made.
This amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) of the C.C.F. party, I presume because he honestly believes that it represents the feelings of some body of opinion in this country. I am wondering what body of opinion they think is represented by a want of confidence motion at this time, based on external affairs. I suppose it is quite likely that the intention

is to carry out the spirit of the now well-known press release issued by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation, and dated March 4, 1952, dealing with external affairs, in which these two sentences appear:
The C.C.F. urges that Canada should vigorously oppose the armaments goals set at Lisbon.
A halt must be called, before it is too late, to the control of NATO by the military and by certain American influences which jeopardize the peaceful and defensive objectives which brought the organization into being.
I would like the house to remember for the moment the wording of that second sentence. Assuming that that was the intention of the mover of the resolution, I wonder if he realizes that, whatever else he is doing, he is not expressing by that resolution in this house the unanimous opinion of those across Canada who support the C.C.F. as a party. The statement from which I just quoted was dated March 4.
I hold in my hand the C.C.F. News published in Vancouver. This is the issue of March 5, in which the leading editorial deals with the same subject. In order that I may be perfectly fair and that I may not be accused of picking out of the editorial just those sentences that appeal to me, I shall place on the record, not necessarily with either relish or approval, the whole editorial. I shall quote it; and, if the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) will forgive the plagiarism, I shall be quoting until I indicate that I have reached the end of the passage. I quote:
Progress at Lisbon
The vague communique issued at the conclusion of the NATO conference at Lisbon shows that NATO waxes stronger, though not as speedily as some wish. Apparently, some division of the military burden was agreed upon, subject to ratification by the member countries, and a permanent political organ for collaboration of the member states is to be created.
For the governments represented at Lisbon to agree upon that division was a great achievement and, no doubt, a bitter task. To persuade the parliaments of the member states to implement the Lisbon decisions is another difficult task and already Mr. Faure's delicately poised French government has fallen on this issue.
There is not only the problem of distributing the burden as between countries; there is also the problem of distributing the burden as between classes within member countries.
All the socialist parties of the NATO countries and of western Germany are agreed upon the principle of common rearmament and common defence, but we are pitted against the capitalist parties of those countries on the division of the burden as between classes and on the issue of socialist versus capitalist modes of social and economic development. The socialist parties nevertheless quarrel among themselves on what may be termed national issues. Thus on the question of European and NATO duties and privileges for western Germany, German and French socialists seem irreconcilable.
Nevertheless the small minority of socialists who can find nothing better to do than whine about

External Affairs
American dominance and the threat of revived German nationalism and the like do the cause of socialism a grave disservice, for they sow only confusion. These are grave problems which will not be resolved by whining and sneering.
The socialist parties of the NATO countries must make their peace, either with their capitalist parties or with the Kremlin, and they have elected the former. As socialists, our job is to strengthen the voice of socialism within the councils of the NATO countries and of NATO itself. We must urge a fair distribution of the military burden from a working class point of view and a coming to grips with social and economic problems, the solution of which is vital no less to defence than to all other good considerations.
Meanwhile, let us record, in a mood not of despair but of hope, that there was progress at Lisbon.
That, apparently, is the considered viewpoint of at least some of those who are glad to call themselves C.C.F. supporters in this country; and I am glad to say that it is that section of the C.C.F. which comes from my province.
Then, Mr. Speaker, the next question which occurs to me is this: Being a vote of non-confidence, it is a vote of non-confidence in what? Is it non-confidence in the Canadian government? Well, the fact that it is introduced in this House of Commons would leave that as a fair assumption. Is it not also a vote of non-confidence in NATO itself?
I know the hon. member who offered the amendment made that clear, because at page 769 of Hansard for March 25 he is reported in this way:
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.
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.
It occurs to me that a great many sound newspapermen are going to find it their duty to forward, as a news item of import, to a great many countries vitally concerned, the terms of the hon. member's resolution, a resolution which has news merit. But it also occurs to me that the average newspaperman may decide that it is not necessarily up to him to forward the terms of the hon. member's speech, because apparently that has neither value nor merit.
He has not explained to us in the terms of his resolution just in what way the government could have-and I quote his words- taken "effective steps to achieve the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty", by itself. And so I presume, whether he intended it so or not-and he cannot read

External Affairs
it otherwise-the implied want of confidence must extend also to NATO as an organization.
Of course there is a third possibility, that it is also intended as a vote of non-confidence in the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Speeches made during this debate would seem to bear out that interpretation. We in this house, then, are being asked to endorse a vote of want of confidence in our Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the man from Canada who has such an outstanding record in the whole western world, whose efforts in connection with such matters as the cease-fire talks in respect of Korea made him the idol of the peace-loving countries of the world, a man who is perhaps just another proof of the truth of the biblical quotation, misquoted in this house earlier today, that a prophet is not without honour save in his own country.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada is the man whom I have heard described as the only known case in modern history of somebody having achieved what was formerly regarded as the impossible, a practical idealism. This is the man whom I have heard described, not only by Canadians but by others, as without exception the soundest man in external affairs living in the world today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I was about to add my personal endorsation to that last statement, but I am glad the house has beat me to it.
What I would like to know is this: What is the intent of the amendment? Is it intended to help or to hinder? And, something further I would like to know, even more important than the intent, is this: What is the likely result of the resolution? Is it likely to help the cause for which we are all seeking a solution-and in this I include the mover of the amendment himself. Is it likely to help or is it likely to hinder?
Is it likely to help the Secretary of State for External Affairs for Canada, that man who for months has been carrying on his shoulders a burden much larger than should be borne by the representative of any mere fourteen millions of people? Is it likely to help him to go into his future negotiations, when he has knowledge that there has been a vote of want of confidence in him, in his government and, I say, in NATO, and that that vote has been placed upon the records of this parliament? Is it likely to help any representative of Canada who from now on may go to the NATO council, when a record of a vote of non-confidence of this nature is in the back 
of his mind, to be drawn upon arid referred to by those whose objective it is not to help but to hinder?
I say, and I say with sincere regret, that the hon. member who introduced this resolution has done irreparable and incalculable damage. I would hasten to say, and I say this, too, with equal sincerity, that I believe the damage done is far greater than any he anticipated at the time he took this action. But that damage has been done.
I should like the house now for a moment to imagine something almost unthinkable- that the resolution should carry in the house. I assume that no resolution is placed upon the records of the house without some consideration being given to the possibility of its carrying. Supposing this one does carry. Can you imagine the capital that might be made out of that by those whose business it is, not only to disrupt NATO but to disrupt any other organization or any other action directed toward the salvaging of the peace of the world? Let us carry a resolution like this and how long will it be before newspapers, not only in the satellite countries but in those we might describe for want of a better term as the wobbly countries would be carrying headlines such as this: Disunity in NATO or NATO attacked by founder member?
That sort of thing must be the natural result of carrying a resolution like this. A couple of days later somebody would get hold of the real implication and we would see headlines such as this: NATO denounced as purely militaristic organization. Then of course the next step, following the U.S.S.R. type of logic, and they are not slow to follow it when given the slightest excuse, would be to interpret the passing of this resolution as follows: NATO held by Canada to be organ of aggression.
I submit that that is not any exaggeration of the picture of what would happen if this house were to lose completely its sense of proportion and carry such a resolution. They will say, "Oh, it will not pass." I grant that, and that being so, why bring it up? Why has it been placed upon the records of this house? They will say, "To permit debate." That excuse will not do this time because this debate was under way before this resolution was moved. The leader of the hon. gentleman's party had spoken and taken his seat before this resolution was moved.
However, there can still be some salvaging done by this house of the damage which I believe sincerely has occurred already. This house can, and I am confident it will, defeat this ill-advised, misguided resolution by a vote which should turn out to be something like 225 to 13.


Percy Ellis Wright: Will you ever get that many Liberals here?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: We have not that many Liberals but I am sure that on a question like this we can count on more than Liberal support.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has it occurred to the hon. member that the moving of this resolution, and indeed the passing of it, might actually strengthen the hands of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, both in the government and at NATO, for the things he believes in?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I will answer the hon. member's question this way: Nothing quite as absurd as that has occurred to me yet. As I was saying when I was so pleasantly interrupted, this house at least can show the world where the elected representatives of the people of Canada stand. I assure you that if this house defeats that resolution by such an overwhelming figure as the one I quoted it would still be considerably smaller proportionately than the defeat which that same resolution would receive if it were submitted in some form of referendum to the people of Canada. Under those circumstances it would be defeated also by a large number of C.C.F. voters who, to quote their own phraseology, would be only too glad to record, in a mood not of despair but of hope, that there had been progress made at Lisbon.


Mr. Raymond Bruneau (Prescott):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of this debate, I have listened with great interest to the various speeches which have been made in connection with external affairs. The international situation is very complicated at present and shows the growing imperialistic tendencies of Soviet Russia.
Since the last world cataclysm that Russian bear has constantly been biting at the brave little democracies around it. At the crack of the knout it has silenced the governments of these free peoples behind the iron curtain. Every day brings us the knowledge of some new treachery perpetrated behind that thick curtain. Yesterday, it was Czechoslovakia's turn to be given a new system of government which, far from having been chosen by her, was imposed upon her. In that former free country there were many isolated groups of resistance, but President Benes was soon forced to make a declaration and the suicide of Jan Masaryk followed.
One after another Yugoslavia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Roumania fell, while in each country a strange comedy was played, to mention only the mock trials of Mindszenty, Beran and others. Greece had its own guerrillas. Its borders were violated and shots
External Affairs
fired, and each time satellites of Moscow helped the invader. Immediately after the rape of the Balkans, China was artfully invaded. Chiang Kai-shek went into exile and set up his headquarters on the island of Formosa. North Korea was invaded and the 38th parallel crossed. The United Nations forces met the invader and since then the Korean war has been on, with its shifting from one side of the 38th parallel to the other and its constant danger of being the spark which will start a third world war.
However, the United Nations action testified to the determination of the free peoples of the world to put a stop to the schemings of the soviet aggressor. Shortly before there was born, under the auspices of Benelux, an organization for the federation of western Europe. Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands signed a treaty of mutual defence and aid in case of aggression. Then France and the United Kingdom joined this organization whose objective was the pursuit of peace. Later, the free nations, conscious of their responsibilities and anxious to safeguard their liberty and to extend a helping hand to the countries which had just lost theirs, signed the North Atlantic treaty.
On the list of the historical documents which are worth mentioning here is one which ranks first both by its objectives and by its comforting effect with regard to the tense international situation.
Here is a monument of international law which for generations will bear witness to the desire of the people of the North Atlantic area to ensure peace in the world and to their determination to take adequate means to that effect. But above all it might make the eager conquerors pause before undertaking their great adventure.
In these times of instability, of uncertainty and of confusion, through the cycles of a cold war or, better, of a war of nerves, the signatories of the treaty have proved their faith in the objects and principles of the charter of the United Nations, their intention to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, thus ensuring peace in the world and to this end in accordance with the preamble to the charter, to unite their combined efforts in preserving their security.
Every clause of the treaty provides for the adoption of measures which would enable the nations to reach that noble goal. Thus, in accordance with section 1, the parties undertake, as provided in the charter of the United Nations, to settle international disagreements by peaceful means and to refrain from using threats or force in a way which would defeat the aims of the United Nations.

External Affairs
Section 2 of the said treaty bears witness to the fact that these people eagerly wish to develop international, peaceful and friendly relationships by strengthening their free institutions. It provides as well for the development of the conditions which are bound to ensure stability, well-being and economic co-operation between all these nations. The next section deals with mutual assistance and the increasing of the individual and combined capacities of these peoples to resist an armed attack. While section 4 provides for consultation every time it is felt that the territorial integrity of political independence or security of one of these parties is threatened, section 5 recognizes that an armed attack against one or more of these parties in Europe or in North America will be considered as an attack, and that in the case of such an attack the parties will, in accordance with the terms of section 51 of the charter of the United Nations, immediately take, individually or with other parties, such action as is deemed' necessary, including the use of armed strength, to maintain or restore peace in the North Atlantic area. Section 9 sets up the council in which each of those parties will be represented, in order to deal with matters relating to the application of the treaty. The council is organized in such a way as to be able to meet on short notice and at any time.
According to the next section, the signatories may invite to adhere to the treaty any other European state which is in a position to encourage the development of the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic. This summarizes some of the provisions of the Atlantic charter. This document will become law in regard to the respect of borders; it is a treaty which might throw in the not too distant future a bright ray of hope on the road to peace and world security so earnestly wished for.
By the same token, consideration should be given to the drafting of a pact similar to the Atlantic pact for the nations of the Pacific. This mutual understanding, good will and harmony sought for the signatories of the Atlantic pact is also ardently desired for those of the Pacific. Free nations intend to establish peace and nothing will be neglected in order to attain that goal.
As someone said previously in this house, we detest communism in all its forms, whether it manifests itself in Europe or in Asia. We shall do our utmost in order to stamp it out wherever it may be, and in this connection, Mr. Speaker, I think that in view of the extraordinary sacrifices
already made by our citizens, no reproach could be addressed to a nation of barely fourteen million people. Obviously, violence has never settled any problem, and our military preparations are intended to checkmate the world domination ambitions of the communists.
Alas, when a regime refuses to acknowledge human rights, when it disregards indi-viduaj freedom and refuses to the citizen the right to worship and to adore the God of his choice, nothing good can come of it. The world today longs for a return of a sound prosperity, but it seems to seek in vain the proper formula in the maze in which it finds itself after two world wars and a depression which started barely twenty years tago.
I believe that a proper solution can only be found in a closer co-operation between peoples. What is lacking, no doubt, is a larger measure of charity. Suspicion is rife in both camps. 1 realize that the activities of Moscow are not very reassuring in regard to the maintenance of peace. We are witnessing an armaments race; nations are being placed on a war footing while ardently wishing to safeguard peace.
However, there still exists in the world a wise spiritual authority able to give us the necessary guidance to enable us to achieve understanding and harmony. This guiding light towards which most of the nations of the world are turning today for leadership possesses twenty centuries of experience, and a wealth of information which it would be greatly to our advantage to consult.
Let us hope that in the near future we shall have our own representative accredited to this authority in that city of the seven hills, thus enabling us to pursue a task so well begun.
(Translation):


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, I have already taken part in this debate on the motion to go into supply. I have not had an opportunity, however, to speak on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright). Before doing so, I shall attempt, nevertheless, to reply briefly to the accusations levied the other night by the member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon). I regret he is not here at the moment.
The hon. member said, amongst other things: Why are our troops not being brought back from Korea? It is essential, I feel, that we should go back to consider the reasons that prompted this parliament to approve the

sending of one brigade to Korea to be part of the United Nations troops that were to resist and repel aggression.
It will be remembered that in June, 1950, the North Koreans attacked South Korea, at a time when a United Nations commission was already out there trying to find a solution to the problem of unification of that country. The security council met at once and unanimously decided-owing to the absence of the soviet who have doubtlessly regretted their action ever since-to oppose force to this unjustified aggression in North Korea.
The security council appealed to the member governments of the United Nations, asking them to send land, sea and air forces to Korea, to take part in operations designed to resist that aggression.
Under the United Nations charter, Canada had undertaken to take part in any United Nations program for collective defence, at the request of the security council.
By sending a brigade to Korea, we have thus fulfilled a legal obligation to which we had freely subscribed, in order to sanction the principle of collective security; in our modern world, peace would be unattainable without that principle, for we are at all times exposed to the dangers of unjust aggression. At the outset, in the fall of 1950, fortune seemed to favour us and already, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said,-and he was quoted the other evening by the hon. member for Chicoutimi,-we had high hopes of bringing peace back to Korea.
However, because of circumstances which it is not for me to judge, because a military leader saw fit to pursue a campaign which might have more wisely been stopped there and then, the Chinese thought they were in danger and entered the war. We believe that they were never faced with any real danger, but they claim that they had to defend their country. And in order to defend their country, they approved of the sending across the border of Chinese "volunteers" to help the North Koreans.
The United Nations forces had to withdraw and to reorganize in order to launch a new attack which brought them to the 38th parallel. At that moment, that is, last summer, armistice negotiations were started, while the opponents were facing each other along that 150-mile long front.
Since then, the front has remained about the same; there has been little activity, except for air fighting and some patrol clashes.
External Affairs
"What are we waiting for? Why do we not withdraw from Korea," asks the member for Chicoutimi?
If we keep in mind what I have just said, if we make a logical study of the facts such as I have recited them, how must we answer the member for Chicoutimi? Well, we are waiting until there has been an armistice or until this aggression has been really beaten back and the problem definitely settled. That it seems to me, is the motive by which Canadians must be guided, and the same motives should guide the other members of the United Nations with forces in Korea.
If the Americans, the British, the French, the Canadians, the Australians and the New Zealanders were to withdraw from Korea, what would happen? Immediately, North Korea and the Chinese communists would invade South Korea. What would the United Nations think then? What a let-down that would be for the world, for all those countries that have put their faith in that organization.
I said in this house, on Tuesday last, that we still believe and that we must keep on believing in the United Nations, for this organization can still establish and maintain world peace.
Let us hope that the Russians, at a certain moment, will see the light and will understand that it is in their own interest, as well as in their satellites' interest, to co-operate readily with the other member nations, because the United Nations offer a solid basis for peace, provided every one contributes to the undertaking and acts in good faith.
If Canadians were to set a bad example by withdrawing from Korea at this most crucial moment when this problem may well be in process of settlement, well, Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member for Chicoutimi that, should we set such an example, no human being in this world would ever have faith in the United Nations and any other international body set up for joint defence would become useless.
We must not wait to be crushed by our potential enemies one after the other.
I happened to read the other day that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was taking the spotlight away from the United Nations Organization and that NATO was threatening to throw into the background the aims and endeavours of the United Nations. I do not believe that is the case, Mr. Speaker. Our country and the other North Atlantic

External Affairs
treaty countries have had to rebuild and rearrange their defensive strength, in order to meet possible aggression, by establishing this Atlantic pact under section 51 of the United Nations charter, which allows member countries to unite for purposes of defence.
Well, if on the one hand, we were forced to do so, I repeat that on the other hand our long-term policy consists in uniting, within the United Nations Organization, for our common defence against a potential aggressor. We have given proof of this in Korea. It is true that at the present time, the work undertaken by NATO affects us more closely and costs us much more than our participation in the United Nations.
The North Atlantic pact is absolutely essential. Several hon. members have elaborated on that subject, among them the member for Prescott (Mr. Bruneau) who has just made a speech along those lines; the North Atlantic treaty must be considered as a means of avoiding aggression launched by potential enemies, as well as of reinforcing our strength and of helping the western countries to become stronger within the United Nations. I know not whether my chief, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will approve of what I have to say but personally I believe, and I shall keep on repeating it, that we can win peace only if we succeed in establishing a balance of power. World history itself backs up our assertion and proves that in spite of a few skirmishes, there has been peace in the world whenever a true balance of power has existed. Through the agency of NATO we can attain that equilibrium in the world and group under the United Nations equal forces having equal voices in any decision.
And it is not because we have to rearm within the framework of NATO that our actions are not consistent with the disarmament we preach at the United Nations. On the contrary, if we must defend ourselves against possible attack, if we have to rearm within the framework of NATO, this rearmament in itself is a means of bringing about the disarmament of the soviet bloc. That in my opinion is the only way to achieve that result since I believe the soviet bloc understands little else but force and that we will be in no position to negotiate on equal terms until our forces reach the point of balance of which I was speaking a moment ago.
It is unfortunate, obviously, that we have to require of the Canadian people their present sacrifices. It is not always easy to explain to some people that a country such as ours, occupying the northern part of the North American continent, may be concerned with what goes on in Europe and Asia. We have no other aim than the common security of the free nations.
For we must not imagine, Mr. Speaker, that we would spend less money, that taxes would be lower, if we allowed Russia to invade Europe or communist China to take over Asia. If we were to erect an impassable barrier around the American continent, behind which we would have to tighten our belts to a point that we could hardly breathe, I wonder what our standard of life would be, what taxes we would have to pay; I even wonder what we would have to eat. After all, that is the situation.
When we are called upon to meet our obligations in the international field it is our own interest we look after. We trust the Canadian people will realize that the sacrifices they are asked to bear are light compared to those that would be their lot should, unfortunately, the North American continent or the whole American continent come to fall under soviet control. There would then be no hope left. We would be living in jail on bread and water, and I am not sure, as I said, we would even be able to breathe.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Lesage the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: I understand that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has consulted the leaders of the various parties and that they have agreed that tomorrow we will take up interim supply and supplementary estimates. I understand that these estimates have to be passed before the end of the fiscal year. I think that business will take up the whole day.


George Alexander Drew: I should think so.


Agar Rodney Adamson: All day?


Alphonse Fournier: I think so.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 28, 1952