1952-03-25

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1952, was presented by Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: Since the further supplementary estimates which I have just tabled contain an item concerning the superannuation account, I would like at this time to table a report on the actuarial examination of the civil service superannuation account in the consolidated revenue fund for the period March 31, 1931, to December 31, 1947. This report has been prepared by the department of insurance and was submitted to me by the chief actuary on April 16, 1951.
During the discussion of the further supplementary estimates of the Department of Finance later this week I shall make a statement on this report and on the policy which the government proposes to follow in making its own contributions to the account.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 20, for the relief of Alma Dorothy Lines Robertson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 21, for the relief of Erita Ethel Elliott Morris.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 22, for the relief of Phyllis Joan Cross Cohen, otherwise known as Phyllis Joan Cross Grosvenor.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 23, for the relief of John Gavigan. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 24, for the relief of Elsie Alexandria Thompson Parr.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 25, for the relief of Frances Bailey Hershbain, otherwise known as Frances Bailey Berman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 26, for the relief of Cosmo Iellamo. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 27, for the relief of Joan Mary Hoerner Rawley.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 28, for the relief of Jennie Harris Klaiman.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 29, for the relief of Dorothy Gertrude French Gorrell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 30, for the relief of Cecile Emilie Viger Ross.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 31, for the relief of Edna Gibson Smith Schiller.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 32, for the relief of Lillian May Holloway O'Brien.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 33, for the relief of Kathleen Marjorie Hastings Hawkins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 34, for the relief of Jean Marie Weeks Opzoomer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 35, for the relief of Doris Abbott Watts.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 36, for the relief of Hyman Krull. -Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 37, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Strange Colton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 38, for the relief of Irene Britton Lynn.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 39, for the relief of Grace Catherine Piche Lovegrove.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 40, for the relief of Bruce Edward Steggles.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 41, for the relief of Alexander Malcolm Dick.-Mr. Winkler.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, April 9, 1952, it stand adjourned until Monday, April 21, 1952.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, of which I have given him notice. In view of the erosion and recent severe flooding of the Toronto islands, will the government give consideration to the erection of a sea-wall and groynes to prevent this vital part of the St. Lawrence seaway from further deteriorating?


Hon. Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, after the adjournment of the house last evening, in discussing this question with the hon. member I mentioned

Inquiries of the Ministry to him that the member representing the way. They reported the incident to the riding in which the Toronto islands were police, the police informed the camp, and located had discussed this question with me the camp had the matter looked into. A for the last four years. The member for report was made. Unfortunately, such mis-Spadina (Mr. Croll) even asked me to receive

 understanding as there was arose from the
a delegation this afternoon with regard to this matter. The best answer I can give to this question at the moment is as follows:
The question of erosion and flooding of Toronto islands is one that has been given consideration by both the city and ourselves for some time past. Both the city and the department have done work on the lake side of the islands. In so far as the department was concerned the work was done to protect the harbour. The question of protection from further deterioration by the construction of a wall or groynes is a subject that is under consideration by both the city and the department at present.



EXPLOSIVES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Brooke Claxion (Minister of National Defence):: Yesterday the hon. member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser) asked me a question about the finding of some mortar bombs at or near the Petawawa camp. With file information then at my disposal, I gave an answer, and said the matter was under investigation. It is still under investigation, but I found that 'the information upon which I acted was incorrect in one respect, owing to a- misunderstanding between the officer reporting from Petawawa and the officer receiving the message here. I said that the bombs, in question were found on the ranges,, but that is not so. Perhaps I had better give a brief account of what happened.	.
On the morning of Saturday, a young boy named Jimmy Rae found a bomb a couple of miles from Pembroke. He brought this to his house in Pembroke, where he showed it to his grandfather. His grandfather did precisely the right thing by telephoning to both the Petawawa camp and the local police. The Petawawa camp had an officer down in a very short time, and he found that the bomb had been handed over to the police. An officer and an ammunition expert went to the police station, rendered the bomb inert and came back to the camp, where they made a report.
Independently another child found five mortar bombs at a garbage dump at the side of the road not far from Pembroke. The people concerned similarly acted in a proper

fact that the two sets of reports from the civilian authorities were made to different military agencies, and were only put together on Monday morning.
The bombs in question were two-inch mortar green signal flares. They weighed rather less than a pound and a half. The lot number was traced, and this is a lot that was delivered to the army in February, 1945, and delivered to the Petawawa camp in March, 1945. They were presumed to have been used there because they are no longer in store at or on charge to the camp. The bombs in question were issued as far back as 1945, and the records of the camp for the handling of this material, after it has been received by the camp and issued to the units, are kept for only two years. There is, however, an inspection service under which unit magazines are inspected every month. No bombs are issued from store or from units without receipts, and a certificate is issued by the officer in charge, when bombs or other live ammunition are used, as to the number that are used.
It is clearly impossible to say how these six bombs got into this garbage. It is not a proper garbage dump, but is located at the side of the road. From the condition of the cardboard carton in which the mortar bombs were, it was obvious that they had been there only as long as the garbage had, and that Was a couple of days.


Mr. Fraser:: May I ask the minister a question? What steps are now being taken to check bombs that go out to the different units, in order to see that they are used and are not left lying around?


Brooke Claxton: As I explained, the officer in charge of the unit where live ammunition is used makes a certificate which goes on the records of the unit magazine and is checked against the issue of the bombsi, so that the unit magazine must either have the bombs or a certificate from the officer in charge that they have been used. The main depots are checked less frequently, but similarly they have to account for all bombs or live ammunition received or issued, in exactly the same way as with regard to any other store.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a further question with regard to the bomb. Was the garbage dump where the box of bombs was found a civilian garbage dump or an army garbage dump?


Brooke Claxton: It was probably half a load of garbage dumped by a private individual by the side of the road. Neither the town nor the army had anything to do with it.
I should like to take this opportunity of urging once again that all articles of this kind that men or others brought home or obtained as souvenirs should be turned in to the armed forces so that they can be dealt with, possibly thus saving lives and certainly saving the time of the house.



IMPORT CONTROLS BY AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister make a statement as to the effect the recently announced restrictions on imports by the governments of New Zealand and Australia may have on Canada? What does the government intend to do with regard to the request of the Canadian Exporters Association in which it urged strong protest against this action?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, additional
import controls have recently been announced by Australia and New Zealand as part of a general program to deal with the acute financial problems of the sterling area. The Canadian government sympathizes with the plight of the countries which are our traditional trading partners within the commonwealth, and we cannot, of course, challenge their right to adopt measures which are essential to deal with their own difficulties. So far, Australia and New Zealand have announced the cancellation of existing import licences, to give each government a chance to review its import control system in accordance with its new policy. Neither Australia nor New Zealand has yet announced what the new policy is to be. At present, therefore, I can make no statement as to the effect of these new controls on Canadian exports to Australia and New Zealand.
The Canadian government has the whole problem under continuous review and has been in frequent contact with the governments of both countries. Last year Canada exported goods to the value of $49 million to Australia and $22 million to New Zealand. Exports to both these countries in 1951 were higher than in any of the three preceding years. Until the present position has been Clarified, it is not possible to determine how much our exports will decline.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The Canadian Exporters Association was anxious in particular to obtain favourable consideration for goods in transit when the new controls were announced and goods manufactured to specification for the Australian and New Zealand markets. Prior to receiving the representation from the Canadian Exporters Association, the Department of Trade and Commerce had already received from New Zealand assurances that goods for which import licences had been issued, and which were ordered before March 12, and which were shipped from Canada prior to April 12, would be admitted. Today we have just received a further message that goods exported from Canada on specified ships leaving on or before April 30 will be admitted. In addition New Zealand is giving consideration to other special cases which affect Canadian exporters.
The new Australian dollar restrictions were only announced on March 20. Provision has already been made for the admission of goods in transit, goods already paid for, and goods covered by firm letter of credit. It is hoped that Australia will honour existing contracts and permit the entry of goods ordered prior to the imposition of the new controls. Representations are being made to this effect to the Australian government.



MARKETING OF DAMP AND TOUGH WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: should also like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Has he any further interim report on what is being done at the moment in order to meet the situation with regard to the marketing of damp wheat? I believe the condition has been worsening in the last few days, according to reports.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, instead of the condition worsening in the last few days, I think it has improved considerably. Arrangements have now been made that a substantial quantity will be dried in Buffalo. The capacity at Duluth is being filled rapidly and drying within Canada is going on steadily.
A few days ago I had a talk with the wheat board about the situation. At that time the wheat board felt that the situation was well in hand and expressed the hope that all damp grain not yet delivered to the wheat board could be delivered at least by the first of May. Rapid progress is being made in clearing points that have been congested. The board also feels that the damp grain which

External Affairs
it is receiving and has received can be handled without serious loss and perhaps without any loss.


John George Diefenbaker: If I may, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Does that estimate also cover the handling of the wheat as yet unharvested, if it turns out to be damp and tough?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already stated that the government has accepted responsibility for some 250 million bushels of damp and tough grain that has already been harvested. I have also stated that the government cannot accept any responsibility whatever for wheat that is harvested tough or damp from now on. I have said that any producer, by exercising patience, can harvest his wheat dry. It will be necessary for him to do that. The government cannot guarantee that the producer will be able to deliver damp or tough grain to country elevators before it is likely to be damaged by warm weather.



REFORESTATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. L. Gibson (Comox-Alberni):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development. Can he advise the house as to what progress has been made in reaching a forestry agreement with the province of British Columbia?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Resources and Development):: A forestry
agreement with respect to reforestation and the completion of forest inventories has been signed between the government of British Columbia and the federal government.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-FOREIGN POLICY
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply.
Mr. Jean Lesage (Monlmagny-L'Islet):: Mr. Speaker, when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) opened this debate last Friday he said that there were some aspects of our external policy that he would not have time to discuss then, but he expected me to deal with some of them at this time. I should like this afternoon first to review briefly the results of the sixth session of the general assembly, which is the last session of the assembly of the United Nations, and then to elaborate on the subject of assistance to underdeveloped countries, with which I myself was particularly concerned.
I would not deny to the house, Mr. Speaker, that the recent sessions of the general assembly left many of the participants with a sense of depression. We all know that the general assembly exists primarily to further the cause of peace and security and to promote the general welfare of all peoples. It is a meeting place where we hope to relieve the tensions between the free world and the Soviet world, and to reach satisfactory political settlements by conciliation and peaceful negotiations. It cannot be said that the sixth session achieved a great deal in terms of these basic purposes.
Nevertheless I would not wish to leave the impression that this meeting, or any other similar meeting during the past year has, in any sense, altered my own basic conviction that we must give full support to the United Nations.
The organization still affords opportunities for negotiation between the free world and the Soviet world, provided that the will to carry on such negotiations is present. This was shown, for instance, in the Berlin blockade, where a casual conversation between a Soviet and a United States representative led to negotiations which eventually ended this explosive episode.
Again, in several complicated disputes, on which the non-communist world has been divided, such as those which have prevailed in Kashmir, Indonesia and Palestine, the United Nations has provided machinery which has yielded important results in ending hostilities.
Moreover, the organization brings together in loose association all the countries of the world which are opposed to soviet aggression. Indeed, it provides the greatest agency existing today for reconciling the views of the highly developed countries of the west and the less developed countries of Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. At the present time it brings together those states which are taking active steps to resist aggression in Korea and those countries which are giving moral, and in some cases diplomatic and economic, support.
The machinery of the United Nations can be used, and it must be used, to make aggression more difficult, if not impossible, and to organize opposition to it. To ignore or belittle the United Nations would be an act of irresponsibility which would gravely weaken the moral basis of our democratic way of life. We cannot pretend that the machinery, as it now stands, is perfect, but there is no substitute for it anywhere. We

live in an imperfect world, and any world organization will inevitably reflect those imperfections.
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.
The resolution on disarmament, which set up a new disarmament commission, of which Canada is a member, to consider "the regulation, limitation and balanced reduction of all armaments and armed forces", may turn out to be the major accomplishment. But the debates on disarmament in the assembly itself and the recent meetings of the disarmament commission under the chairmanship of the Canadian permanent representative to the United Nations in New York show little promise that the U.S.S.R. will be inclined to use the new commission as a place where serious plans for disarmament and the control of atomic weapons should be studied. However, Mr. Speaker, it is really still too early to estimate the value of this resolution of the assembly, and we all must hope that steps will be taken, as a result of the discussions in the commission during the next few months, which will bring some agreement on the very difficult questions of disclosure and international control of armed forces and armaments, including atomic weapons, so that a measure of disarmament, with its consequent easing of tension, will be possible.
Another important decision taken by the general assembly was a resolution on collective measures, which continued the collective measures committee for another year. It was encouraging to see the wide support which the principle of collective security, based on mutual contribution, received from all of the United Nations, with, of course, the exception of the Soviet bloc, and a very few other countries.
In other political fields a commission was established to look into the possibility of holding free elections throughout Germany, and this commission has been unsuccessfully seeking entrance into east Germany for that purpose. The German federal republic has, on the other hand, welcomed the establishment of the commission and has assisted it in its work.
A resolution on the Palestine dispute was adopted which called on the parties to resolve
External Affairs
their differences in conformity with previous: assembly resolutions. This resolution was made acceptable to all parties concerned by amendments introduced by the Canadian delegation.
Libya's attainment of independence was also approved within the time limit set by the assembly in 1949, a development warmly supported by Canada.
Yugoslavia's complaint of hostile activities by the eominform states was dealt with by a resolution calling on all the parties to conduct their relations in accordance with the charter of the United Nations.
The question of Korea was postponed to a special session of the assembly to be convened if an armistice is signed, or if "other developments" make such a session desirable.
There was a sharp division of opinion in the assembly on trusteeship and colonial questions which the debate on southwest Africa made even sharper.
The Canadian delegation, while not taking an active part in these frequently acrimonious and important debates, was not perhaps without influence in bringing about compromises between the views of the administering countries and the non-administering majority.
A sum of a little over $48 million was approved for the United Nations budget for 1952, and the scale of assessments of member governments was adjusted to bring it more into line with the principle that in an organization of sovereign equals no one government should contribute too large a proportion of the budget. The Canadian delegation took an active part in administrative and budgetary questions and pressed once more for all possible economies consistent with efficient functioning of the United Nations.
Mr. T. A. Stone, our Canadian minister to Sweden and Finland, was elected to the important office of chairman of the administrative and budgetary committee, and in this capacity sat as a member of the general (steering) committee of the general assembly.
The third (social) committee of the assembly spent the greater part of its time on the question of the international covenant on human rights. The main issue was whether economic, social and cultural rights should be contained in a covenant dealing with political and civil rights. The assembly decided that the two covenants should be drafted, one containing political and civil rights and the other economic, social and cultural rights,' This question has been debated in the United Nations in the last four or five years, for weeks and weeks without interruption, and

External Affairs
the debate in this house yesterday reminded me of all those weeks spent on civil rights and fundamental human rights.
In the legal field the assembly set up a special committee of fifteen states, including Canada, to study steps to be taken to improve the handling of legal and drafting questions: by future sessions of the assembly. A long debate, as we have them in the United Nations, took place over the definition of aggression, which will be considered again at the next session when a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind will be discussed.
In economic questions the assembly made several important decisions, many of which were taken during the post-Christmas period. Resolutions were approved on land reform in underdeveloped areas, on the problems of hunger and famine, on the prevention of decline of living standards, and on war damages in Libya.
An important resolution calling for contributions to the relief and works agency for Palestine refugees was also approved by the assembly. A long and useful debate was held on the general problem of economic development of the underdeveloped countries. I will deal with that question very fully, since I intend at this point to speak in some detail on technical assistance and capital development in underdeveloped countries.
Last year parliament approved Canadian participation in the Colombo plan and authorized an appropriation of $25 million for the fiscal year 1951-52 for economic assistance to governments in countries in south and southeast Asia. It was later decided that for the first year of the Colombo plan the Canadian contribution should be used to assist in the economic development of India and Pakistan. In order to establish a basic working relationship with the Indian and Pakistan governments, and to make sure that our activities under the Colombo plan would be founded on knowledge and mutual understanding, arrangements were made for consultations to take place here in Ottawa with officials from India and Pakistan.
These discussions were held last summer, and agreement was reached on the general principles which should guide and govern the provision of economic aid by Canada to India and Pakistan under the Colombo plan. Subsequently, on September 10,	1951, an
agreement, in the form of a statement of principles, was signed in New Delhi by representatives of the Canadian and Indian

governments, and in Karachi by representatives of the Canadian and Pakistan governments.
Since then continuing discussions have been carried on with a view to selecting specific projects suitable for economic assistance out of the 1951-52 Canadian appropriation for the Colombo plain.


Mr. Green:: May I ask a question? Have those agreements been tabled in the house? If not, could that be done?


Jean Lesage: I will look into the matter, with pleasure; and as soon as I have finished my remarks I will let the hon. member know.
At the request of the government of India the Canadian government agreed to allot $10 million for the provision of wheat to India under the Colombo plan. This wheat was urgently needed, as hon. members know, to help prevent starvation in certain districts in India. Except for a negligible amount, all the wheat has now been shipped from Canadian west coast ports.
In order that the grant of wheat might be directly related to the economic development objectives of the Colombo plan, the Indian government agreed to establish a special counterpart fund equal in rupees to the $10 million paid for the wheat by the Canadian government.
The government of India proposed that the funds be used to finance a large-scale irrigation and hydroelectric project at Mayurakshi in West Bengal. From all reports this project appears to be economically sound, and we have accepted the Indian proposal that the counterpart funds be devoted to its construction. It is estimated that the Mayurakshi project will, through irrigation, increase the annual food production of the district by about 350 thousand tons of rice and other crops. It will produce some 4,000 kilowatts of electric energy.
In addition to assisting in the construction of the Mayurakshi irrigation and hydroelectric project through the use of counterpart funds, we have also been asked to supply a small amount of equipment not locally obtainable. Inquiries will be made to determine whether the required items are available in Canada and, if so, they will be provided.
Preliminary consideration is being given to the practicability of supplying a quantity of chassis to India for use of the Bombay state transport commission, but this project is still in the discussion stage.
The main project in the Canadian program of economic assistance for Pakistan under the Colombo plan is a cement plant to be

erected in the Thai area of the Punjab where the Pakistan government is carrying on a large-scale colonization scheme for settlement and rehabilitation of millions of people who have moved from their homes as a result of partition.
The governments of Australia, Canada and New Zealand have jointly agreed to establish and equip an experimental livestock farm also in the Thai area. The Canadian contribution to this joint project will take the form of agricultural machinery and related equipment. In addition it is expected that a Canadian expert will be provided to instruct local Pakistani personnel in the care and maintenance of all the farm machinery.
Another item in the Canadian program for Pakistan which has been mutually agreed upon is the provision of a substantial quantity of wooden railway ties which are urgently needed for the rehabilitation and development of the Pakistan railway system.
A tentative agreement has been reached on a photographic and geological survey of Pakistan to be undertaken by Canada. Very little is known of the geological and geophysical make-up of Pakistan, and a survey of the kind contemplated would provide basic data of immediate and long-term value to Pakistan in carrying out its economic development.
The Colombo plan is a novel experiment in international economic co-operation, It is inevitable that in translating the plan into action all kinds of organizational, administrative and consultative problems will arise which will require time to solve. There is also a good deal of preliminary study and fact-finding to be undertaken if our economic aid programs are to rest upon a sound foundation.
As a result, delays in the first stages are unavoidable. Nevertheless it was possible in the past few months to make real progress. Moreover governmental machinery which has been set up to co-ordinate our international economic and technical co-operation, and the experience which has been gained in the first year of the Colombo plan, will greatly help our activities in the future.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said last night at a press conference:
We have been criticized for giving only $25 million to the Colombo plan this year. During the past year we have had a very difficult time working out with India and Pakistan a practical program by which the money could be spent.
As a matter of fact, although the whole $25 million voted by parliament for this current year has been earmarked, only $10 million of goods has been shipped out. This means,
External Affairs
in effect, that in the coming year the balance of this year's program will have to be carried on, along with the programs to be initiated under the 1952-53 contribution.
I should perhaps at this point make' reference to the meeting, which opened yesterday in Karachi, of the consultative committee for co-operative economic development in south and southeast Asia. This committee, which is composed of all the governments participating in the Colombo plan, and includes the United States, meets from time to time to review the progress being made in reaching the objectives of the plan and to discuss matters of policy. At this session Canada is being represented by my colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mcllraith).
Now, a few words about technical co-operation under the Colombo plan. Soon after the establishment of the council for technical co-operation in Colombo, a permanent Canadian representative was appointed to it. The government was anxious to see the program get into action with the least possible delay, and therefore took the initiative in making special offers of training facilities to countries participating in the plan.
Two principles have been kept in mind in making offers of scholarships and fellowships and in inviting technical missions to visit Canada. The first is that the training we offer to make available should be directly related to the economic development needs of the countries in the area, and the second is that the offers be ones which Canada is in a position to implement effectively.
Sixty scholarships and fellowships have been offered under the Colombo technical co-operation program: twenty-five to India, fifteen to Pakistan, ten to Ceylon and ten to non-commonwealth countries in the area. Almost all the trainees from India, Pakistan and Ceylon have arrived in Canada. They are taking courses of training in road and bridge construction, hydroelectric development, public administration, public health and welfare, and agriculture. Up to date the ten awards which were offered to non-commonwealth countries have not been taken up. They are, however, being held open.
Last year three technical missions, each composed of senior government officials from India and Pakistan, were taken on tours across Canada, arranged by Canadian government departments in co-operation with the corresponding provincial departments. One of these missions was interested in studying highway and bridge construction in Canada, another mission came to look into Canadian
7B2

External Affairs
agricultural methods, and the third was interested in hydroelectric power installation and development.
It has proved more difficult to find qualified Canadian experts to serve in advisory capacities in the countries of south and southeast Asia than it has to provide training facilities in Canada for scholars and fellows from that area. Nevertheless we have been able to provide a fisheries consultant from British Columbia to assist the government of Ceylon in the development of the fishing industry, and a refrigeration engineer has also gone to Ceylon to help in the same field.
: Now that the program is under way we shall be able to operate more and more on the basis of specific requests from governments for both experts and training facilities. The government believes, as do most members of the Colombo plan, that technical co-operation will probably do most good at this stage if it concentrates on the training of middle and lower grade workers in their own countries. In planning future activities every effort will be made to shift the emphasis in this direction.
For each of the past two fiscal years, this parliament has authorized an appropriation Of $400,000 for Canadian participation in the technical co-operation program of the Colombo plan. Because of the delays in getting a program of this kind off the ground and running smoothly the total value of the services and facilities extended by Canada has lagged behind the amount of funds available. However, the program has been steadily increasing its pace.


Mr. Knowles:: At this point could the parliamentary assistant state the actual amount that has been expended out of those two votes?


Jean Lesage: I could not give the exact figure for this year, but the hon. member by looking at the estimates can find out the amount of the revote.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Last year the amount
expended was only $5,581. I was interested in knowing if the parliamentary assistant could give the actual expenditure during the fiscal year which is just now coming to a close.


Jean Lesage: I will inquire and give a full answer tomorrow to the hon. member.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, in a public address three weeks ago, said:
The Canadian government regards the Colombo program for technical co-operation as a temporary supplement to the technical assistance activities of the United Nations and the specialized agencies in south and southeast Asia.

We hope that the United Nations, if it is given appropriate support in these activities, will be able to assume by the end of a three- or four-year period the major responsibility for technical assistance in south and southeast Asia and we are urging the greatest possible use of all United Nations agencies offering technical assistance to south and southeast Asia. That is not to say that as a participant in the six-year Colombo plan for the economic development of the area and particularly as a member of the commonwealth we will not have a direct and continuing interest in special technical assistance to those countries. But we do not wish the two approaches to this problem to overlap or conflict.
The expanded technical assistance program of the United Nations is a vast and concrete plan. This plan is in effect a very comprehensive one, and at the same time a most practical one; it is of no mean significance in the world of today, having as its objective a pooling of technical knowledge for the benefit of all peoples. This plan is intended to be one of the essential factors in the economic and social co-operation described as a fundamental task of the United Nations by the charter itself, and particularly by article 55.
The technical assistance missions and experts constitute the "other forces of the United Nations." While the soldiers of the United1 Nations are fighting in Korea to repel aggression, it is the privilege of these other "forces" to contribute directly to the well-being of the countries in which their operations are conducted and in so doing to help ease the present world tension.
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.
Canada contributed $850,000 to the first eighteen months' operation of this program on a total budget of $20 million. This year, at the technical assistance conference which was held in Paris on the 6th and 7th of February, we offered to contribute on a matching basis a maximum of $850,000 towards the objective of $20 million for the present twelve months period, and at least $750,000. The United States for its part has offered to contribute a maximum of $12 million if the contributions reach $20 million, but not more than sixty per cent of the total. The contributions of the United States and Canada are offered in this way in order to encourage other contributing countries, and especially the receiving countries, to participate themselves in the plan and show their interest in it. The United States and Canada have pledged a little over $2 for each

dollar which will be contributed by all the other countries in the world. I do not believe that Canada could be accused of lack of generosity.


Mr. Slewari (Winnipeg North):: Or the
United States.


Jean Lesage: All right; if it pleases my hon. friend I will change my sentence. "I do not believe that the United States or Canada could be accused of a lack of generosity". I am delighted to change it.


Mr. Stick:: You are not speaking for the United States; you are speaking for Canada.


Jean Lesage: I am speaking in the House of Commons of Canada. Moreover its effort was highly praised by the other representatives at the technical assistance conference, including the United States representative.
On March 1, 1952, the total contributions pledged were equivalent to $18,839,618, the American contributions being calculated at 60 per cent of the total and the Canadian contribution at $750,000. The Canadian representative said at the technical assistance conference, and I quote:
We regret very much that pledges to date do not permit the utilization of the maximum Canadian pledge. However, we are very anxious to go as far as possible toward ensuring the success of this important program during 1952. My government, will, therefore, make a firm pledge today of $750,000. The further $100,000 will remain available until the Final Act is closed for signature.
Which is April 15. Since the beginning of the program in July, 1950, Canada has received forty-six United Nations fellows from underdeveloped countries for special training in Canada, in addition to many directed to us by the specialized agencies. We have just completed training arrangements for an additional twenty-seven United Nations fellows in Canada. Moreover, many Canadians are serving abroad in the field under the United Nations program, a great number of them in Asian countries.
In the field of assistance to underdeveloped countries there are certain essential points which to my mind must not be forgotten if our action in economic aid and technical assistance is to be effective. In the first place, we must keep in mind the co-operative nature of these programs. We can help, but much more important than any help we can give must be the determination of the countries concerned to come to grips with their own grave economic and social problems. Further, our action must be patient and sustained; for we cannot expect positive results overnight; after all, it is a question of raising living standards for hundreds and
External Affairs
hundreds of millions of human beings who at present sometimes find it hard merely to survive.
Successful co-operation between economically underdeveloped countries and those who wish to assist them can be established only on a basis of mutual confidence. Essentially, it is a question of self-help and mutual aid, a matter of putting into practice the old familiar proverb: "God helps those who help themselves". The economic and social betterment of all regions and of all nations can, in the long run, be achieved only by effort from within the countries. Outside sources can provide equipment and technical knowledge or capital, but the national will must assert itself and work for the nation.
The Marshall plan is an excellent illustration of this truth: if European nations had accepted North American aid with their arms folded, Europe could never have recovered economically from the devastation of the last war. In working together for the recovery of their respective economies, European powers have done as much one for another as the Marshall plan has done for each.
As I have said, successful economic and social rehabilitation will not be achieved overnight. The problems are too complex and diverse for that. We know that even in a country like Canada the improvement of social conditions is a slow process, bound up with the whole of the human and natural resources of the country, and dependent upon education as much as upon economic development. It is too frequently forgotten that the populations most advanced socially have reached their high standard only progressively. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in this house last year, trying to move too quickly in too many directions at once, directions that are often opposite ones, can only lead to chaos. It is well known that economic progress in any field, whether it be by way of accelerated industrialization or by modernization of agricultural methods, upsets the old social structure and creates and intensifies social problems. If economic development is to be achieved without unnecessary disruption and hardship, it is important not to neglect the social problems, problems of health, education, labour conditions and social welfare.
On the other hand, it is not by completely exhausting a "national economy for social needs that the social problem can be solved. On the contrary, the opportunity of solving it will be lost. There is a balance to be kept, a balance which differs according to countries, but which can be maintained only if social progress is founded on economic reality.

External Affairs
That being said, we must acknowledge that there exist today hundreds of millions of human beings, especially in Asia and Africa, whose living conditions are not only deplorable; they are intolerable. It is imperative that we help to remedy this state of affairs. Otherwise, the democratic world will remain at the mercy of a real enmity kindled for political ends in these peoples who are starving for bread and enlightenment.
If we expect the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America to share our belief in democracy and to stand with other nations of the free world in defence of the democratic way of life, we must help them to know the benefits of democracy. We must convince them, by genuine and practical co-operation, that our system does not tend to perpetuate economic and social injustice and class privilege. It is urgent, therefore, that we should continue, through the United Nations and outside it, as in the Colombo plan, to assist underdeveloped countries to build up, little by little, conditions of economic stability and social well-being.
To conclude may I quote these words from a message of the President of the United States to congress on March 6 last:
The peoples of many of these areas confront the legacy of centuries of neglect: they are in many cases desperately poor, defenceless before famine and disease, disabled by illiteracy. At the same time they have a new and burning determination to improve their living standards, to fulfil their desire for self-government, to control their own futures. As old social structures have failed to meet the basic needs of their peoples, the popular energy, so long pent up, is bursting forth in fierce nationalism and in fierce demands for real economic change.
These conditions would exist even if there were no Soviet threat to world peace. But the pressure of Soviet communism, working overtime to exploit the turbulence of the underdeveloped areas, greatly increases the necessity for speed in meeting these conditions-speed in the interest, not alone of orderly and democratic development, but of the security of the whole free world.


Mr. Cresiohl:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Jean Lesage: Yes.


Leon David Crestohl: The hon. member made two references to Palestine: first, the intervention by the United Nations to arrest hostilities, and second, the study of compensation to displaced persons in Palestine. Does the use of the word "Palestine" refer to the countries on both sides of the Jordan, or-to the land of Israel, which, until May 14, 1948, was known as Palestine?


Jean Lesage: The word "Palestine" referred to the country on both sides of the Jordan.


Mr. Pouliol:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. We followed his progress

in Europe, and read with great interest a dispatch to the effect that he was victorious in an argument with the Russians. Could he tell us about that?	.


Howard Charles Green: External Affairs
That approach was completely unrealistic for two reasons. In the first place, there on Formosa we have millions of people who, at the very least, are anti-communist. They are not in with the communists. Is Canada to take the position that these people can be handed over to the Chinese communists, to be shot by the thousand-turned over to be tried in these people's courts, these kangaroo courts, which have been in operation on the mainland in China since the Chinese communists took over there? Surely Canada does not propose to stand for a policy of that kind. Right Hon. Winston Churchill dealt with this point when he addressed the American congress. He said:
I am very glad that whatever diplomatic divergencies there may be from time to time about procedure, you do not allow the Chinese anti-communists on Formosa to be invaded and massacred from the mainland.
I suggest to the government in great seriousness that that is the policy which should be adopted by Canada.
Then the approach on the question of Formosa is unrealistic as well for another reason. That island must be held for strategic reasons. The line of defence on the Pacific runs from Alaska through the Aleutian islands, down to Japan, Formosa, and to the Philippines. Formosa is a key point in that whole line. With friendly air bases and naval bases in Formosa, in Japan and in the Philippines, it would be very difficult for the communists to attack this continent. That is the easiest way for us to prevent an attack on our own shores. If we give over Formosa to the communists, no matter what stripe they may be, then we are breaching that whole defence line, and the western coast of this country becomes the defence line.
It has been the policy of Canada for many decades that the best way to defend this country is to do our fighting as far away from our homeland as possible, and that is the obvious course to be followed with regard to Formosa. Therefore, I urge that Canada should take the stand that so far as she is concerned Formosa is not to be handed over to communists under any consideration. I repeat that our Secretary of State for External Affairs has no excuse whatever for a policy of leaving this question of Formosa "open", as he said.
Further, with regard to the Pacific, .1 am also disturbed at the minister's failure even to mention a defence pact in the Pacific. In the Atlantic we have this great plan, this North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In the Pacific there is no such arrangement. Obviously, something must be worked out. It is folly to leave the Pacific wide open.

The present policy in that area seems to be to have bilateral or trilateral agreements. For example, there is a bilateral agreement between the United States and Japan; another one between the United States and the Philippines; and a trilateral agreement between the United States, Australia and New Zealand. To none of these agreements is Canada a party, although we are a nation on the Pacific. Those particular treaties, at least the ones between the United States and the Philippines and between the United States, Australia and New Zealand, are designed primarily to protect those smaller nations against a resurgence of Japanese militarism. They are really designed as a protection against Japan, but it is a very interesting fact that both of them envisage a wider pact.
I have both treaties here, and in the agreement between the United States, Australia and New Zealand I find this paragraph in the recital:
Desiring further to strengthen their present efforts for collective defence for the preservation of peace and security pending-
And this is the important part:
-pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area.
That paragraph is in the recital. Then, article VII of the treaty provides for the setting up of a council of the foreign ministers of these three countries, or their deputies, to consider methods of implementing the treaty. Article VIII gives, in detail, the hope that a broader treaty will emerge from this one. That article reads in this way:
Pending the development of a more comprehensive system of regional security in the Pacific area and the development by the United Nations of more effective means to maintain international peace and security, the council, established by article VII, is authorized to maintain a consultative relationship with states, regional organizations, associations of states or other authorities in the Pacific area in a position to further the purposes of this treaty and to contribute to the security of that area.
In checking up on the debates which have taken place in the United Kingdom and in Australia and New Zealand, I find that all of these countries are hoping for an extension of that particular treaty. They hope that it will develop into a Pacific defence pact.
Canada, I suggest, should now ask to become a party to the United States-Aus-tralia-New Zealand treaty. If there were to be trouble in the Pacific, if one of those sister nations of the commonwealth were to be attacked, Canada would be in fighting before twenty-four hours had passed. Surely it is the part of wisdom to make arrangements now, to get in now and work out plans together. Just think what a help it would be

to have Canada taking part in the deliberations of this council which is being set up under the treaty between United States, Australia and New Zealand. Such a treaty would serve also as a nucleus for a broader pact in the Pacific.
There is still time for Canada to act. I see no other way of putting an end to aggression in the Pacific than by setting up a defence pact of one kind or another. Frankly I cannot understand why Canada has hesitated to go into partnership in this area with her sister nations of Australia and New Zealand and with our good friend, the United States.
The second area about which I should like to make a few remarks is the Middle East.
I am very glad that the minister has been able to return to the house. I regret it was not possible for him to be here earlier. In the Middle East Canada is now vitally concerned, since Greece and Turkey have become members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Hon. members may not realize it, but under the North Atlantic treaty pact Canada is obliged to go to the assistance of Turkey if she should be attacked in her far eastern reaches. That is our obligation, an obligation which is new, and yet which was undertaken by this house at the session last fall. The result is that Canada is interested, vitally interested, in every thing that happens in the Middle East.
When he closes the debate I would ask the minister to explain where the government stands on two questions having to do with the Middle East. In the first place, what about the Suez canal? Do we agree with the stand taken by Mr. Churchill when he spoke to the United States congress just a few weeks ago or do we not? Here is what he said:
It is no longer for us alone to bear the whole burden of maintaining the freedom of the famous waterway of the Suez canal. That has become an international, rather than a national, responsibility.
He pointed out what a burden it was, and then said:
Britain is maintaining over 50,000 troops in the Suez canal zone, who again might be well employed elsewhere, not for national vainglory or selfseeking advantage, but in the common interests of all nations.
Mr. Churchill went on to ask that there be at least small forces from Great Britain's allies stationed in the Suez canal zone, and I may point out, Mr. Speaker, that half of the shipping going through the Suez canal now is United States shipping, made up largely of tankers carrying oil. Where does Canada stand on this question of the Suez canal, and where do we stand with regard to the Middle East command? Are we in favour
External Affairs
of a Middle East command being set up, and just what would be our attitude on that question?	i
My final subject is the British commonwealth. In his speech the other day, the minister made only one passing reference to the commonwealth. It is perfectly clear that he has no intention of relying on the commonwealth to preserve the peace of the world. It is perfectly clear too that he attaches little importance to the commonwealth as such for leadership through these dark days of tension. His attitude is in striking contrast to the attitude taken by the public men of the United Kingdom and of Australia and New Zealand in the debates in those countries on external affairs.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, the British commonwealth has come successfully through dire perils twice. Our peoples have been in terrible and serious troubles, twice within the memory of everyone in this chamber today.
I remember June, 1940, when France fell and Italy declared war on us. I remember our minister of defence, the late Hon. Norman Rogers, and the wonderful man he was, who was killed that very day in an air crash. I remember the terrible weight of tragedy that bore us down at that time, and when the British commonwealth stood alone for a whole year, and saved civilization. That took place about twelve years ago. The commonwealth was in both those wars from beginning to end, and is in a weakened condition today because of the efforts made for civilization in those wars.
In 1944 what was the position of the commonwealth? Here I have the report of a speech by Mr. Churchill delivered in Moscow on October 21, 1944, and I think it is of interest to the house. At that time he had a meeting with Premier Stalin, and here is an extract from the report of that meeting:
Mr. Churchill, over a microphone for Soviet reels, declared it his earnest belief that Russia, the British commonwealth-
He did not say the United Kingdom.
-and the United States would march in unison through years of peace.
These are the further words attributed to him in the report:
We have worked very hard.
Most of all has it been pleasant to me and an honour to have so many long and intimate talks with my friend and war comrade. Marshal Stalin.
I hope most earnestly and I believe with deep conviction that the warrior statesman at the head of Russia, through these years of storm and tempest, will bring his country into the sunlight of a broader and happier age for all, and with him in this task will march the British commonwealth of nations and the mighty United States of America.
It is only too sad that that wish has not been fulfilled. I suggest to the house, and

External Affairs
in particular to the minister, that right at this time the British commonwealth could be the greatest factor in bringing peace to this world. It joins east and west as no other group of nations can do. It must stand for peace, because it is vulnerable. It has had experience in world affairs, and it has patience, tolerance, understanding and judgment.
The Canadian government should realize this and should make every possible endeavour to strengthen the commonwealth. That could be done, for example, by Canada entering into a Pacific defence pact with Australia, New Zealand, the United States and possibly the United Kingdom. It could be done by Canada taking a stand beside the British on the question of the Suez. It could be done by switching many of our defence purchases to the commonwealth. We have an adverse balance of trade with the United States, a tremendously adverse balance because, for one reason, we are buying from that country practically all our defence equipment which comes from abroad. Let us switch every possible defence order to nations of the commonwealth.
It could be strengthened, again, by promoting migration from the United Kingdom, helping to disperse British industries in Canada, and to disperse British manpower. The industries crowded into that small island are subject to atomic attack, in the event of war, which would be disastrous not only to the British but to the whole of the civilized world.
We could take a full part in any conference held by the commonwealth. It is only a few months ago that there was a conference which dealt with Mediterranean defence problems. Canada, if you please, would not send its Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), but sent only one of the officials from the department. She would not sit in with the other British nations on an equal basis, although today we find ourselves obligated to fight to aid Turkey in the event of trouble at the far end of the Mediterranean.
Canada could strengthen trade within the commonwealth by stopping her attitude of' trying to persuade other British nations to cut down their preference. Let us stand behind them when they try to maintain those preferences which have meant so much to them and, incidentally, so much to many parts of Canada, including my own province of British Columbia.


Mr. Blackmore:: And including the United States, too.


Howard Charles Green: Then, again, why should we have this situation developing? Our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) only a few weeks ago sat in on a conference of ministers of finance of the commonwealth. Now we find the charge being made by a responsible member of the British House of Commons, who was a former minister, that our Minister of Finance was a skeleton at the feast. Mr. Wilson said:
It was because at that conference there was a skeleton at the feast. I am referring to the Minister of Finance of Canada.
And this, I may say, was said on March 14. Then Mr. Wilson's remarks continued:
We are, of course, always glad to have the Canadian finance minister at any conference but it was his presence which prevented the Chancellor of the Exchequer from proposing outright discrimination against the dollar which is clearly what we ought to be doing at the present time.
I am interested in another way in which we can help strengthen the commonwealth. 1 refer to the Colombo plan. I was delighted to hear today a report on the progress being made in connection with that plan. I think the government is to be praised for what has been done, and I hope it will be possible to do much more. I cannot think of a finer way to win the lasting friendship of the Asiatic members of the commonwealth than by going all-out to further that Colombo plan.
There are many other things Canada could do. I have mentioned only a few of them. Probably Canada can do more at this time to strengthen the commonwealth than any other member-nation thereof. We might even be able to take a position of leadership.
This policy of strengthening the commonwealth is wise for Canada for the present, and it will be wise for the future. It would help to make Canada a great nation. Some people in this country seem to believe that the commonwealth is of no value to us, that we are merely helping others by continuing as a member. In that connection I should like to quote to them from a very interesting book which, I should imagine, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has read. I refer to the book "On Being Canadian", by Vincent Massey, our present Governor General. At page 100 we find this:
There are good reasons why the commonwealth is of importance to us in our national life; important both in our relations abroad and in our domestic affairs. For one thing, we have greater influence in the world as a member of the British family than would otherwise be ours. Membership gives us in a sense a double status. It provides one of the rare instances in which one can "eat one's cake and have it too." I feel sure from my own experience that the fact that Canada appears on the international scene, not only as an important country on her own account, but also as a member

of a great world association, lends her enhanced prestige. In the international world, prestige means influence.
I believe, too, that a policy of strengthening the commonwealth will not only help to make Canada one of the great nations of the world, but will help to ensure world peace, as perhaps nothing else we can do.
In conclusion, let us not write off the commonwealth, as many have been inclined to do. Great as the commonwealth has been in the past, I believe that under our young queen even greater days lie ahead.


Mr. P. E. Wright (Melfort):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Lesage) upon the concise and, I think, satisfactory account he gave in the time he had available of what took place at the United Nations. I am sure he could have spent another hour telling us about incidents which happened there, and all would have been delighted to listen,
I found that our Canadian group at the United Nations held a place of high esteem in that organization, and that they have been doing an excellent job there on behalf of Canada. I do not intend to follow the arguments of the parliamentary assistant with respect to economic aid either under the Colombo plan or in the UN except to say that, like him, I see the difficulties that exist. But I do think that, even though those difficulties are there, probably we have to do more than we have been doing, to date. I feel that that is the objective of the government with regard to the East and the Far East.
Nor do I intend to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) with respect to the commonwealth. I do not think there is anyone in the house who does not agree that the commonwealth not only has played but, in the future, will play an important part in the world of today. I think that is too obvious to need bolstering by arguments in the house.
However, there is one important subject with which I wish to deal. The impression seems to have been created in the house and in the country that, because we in this group agree that a position of strength must be attained if peace is to be maintained-or, should I say, if war is not to spread farther- we agree with the present government policy with respect to NATO.
I want to say, and as decidedly as I can, that this is not the case. While we do agree with the over-all objective, we certainly 55704-49
External Affairs
disagree with the methods by which this government is presently trying to implement that objective.
The minister of external affairs, in answer to a question of mine on page 672 of Hansard with respect to the amount of economic aid which Canada had contributed to NATO, stated as follows:
I cannot give any information in concrete terms as to what has been done in the field to which I just referred. Indeed, very little has been done In the field of non-military co-operation. I admit that, and I think we must all be disappointed that more has not been done.
He goes on to state further that feeling of co-operation that some progress has been made by the European countries themselves in the field of migration and the moving of labour between European countries, but so far as Canada is concerned the fact remains that nothing concrete has been done to date in connection with economic aid within NATO. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) as to what budgetary arrangements for carrying out the different economic proposals had been agreed upon, the minister stated and I quote:
There was a discussion of budgetary arrangements for NATO generally and there was an estimate made by the experts who worked with us on this committee as to how much these proposals would cost. They will cost a considerable amount. They include such items as exchanges of students and that kind of thing. But I am not in position to give exact figures in that regard at the present time. They will not cost much in relation, I might add. to our our total expense program.
I wonder if the government in thinking of economic aid thinks only in terms of a few students who might be brought to Canada. Much as that is desirable, I am sure that in terms of preparedness against any aggression in the immediate future it is a miserable contribution as far as Canada is concerned. The minister himself has stated time and again, in this house, over the radio and at international meetings, that economic aid must be made part of the defence of our free society and that military defence in itself is not enough.
It is now some three years since NATO was first organized. We are spending, not millions but billions of dollars on military defence, and rightly so, but the minister states that in concrete terms to date nothing has been spent by Canada as far as economic aid is concerned. He goes further than that and states that all that we have to show to date is a report of the committee of five which has been sent to the NATO council for their consideration and further reference back to the governments concerned for implementation.

External Affairs
Surely alter three years it is time that we had something concrete to show in this field which the minister himself admits is so important. The hon. member for Kindersley (Mr. Larson) in his speech the other day said that we must first have military preparedness to protect our investment in Europe in economic aid. Is that the government's position with regard to economic aid? I would ask the minister this: How can the European partners in NATO carry out their share of the military program under present conditions unless we in Canada are prepared to implement some of the pious statements which we have been making with regard to this matter? Surely one of the reasons why the European partners are unable to do more in the way of military defence than they have been able to do to date is a lack of raw materials and the prices they are having to pay for those raw materials to the North American partners in NATO. On February 1 the Montreal Gazette contained the following Canadian Press dispatch:
Mr. Abbott, just back from a second trip to Europe in recent weeks, said Canada couldn't approve a high-level NATO committee's suggestion that Canada send over free raw materials and basic commodities-copper, zinc, wheat-because it would imperil her own trading and economic position.
Later the dispatch states:
For that reason the finance minister said he was in full agreement with Mr. Pearson's statement that Canadian acceptance of such a suggestion would be "undesirable" in principle.
In other words, this government does not believe that we should make these essential materials available to our partners as a free gift, and on the other hand the government states by its actions that we cannot accept what Europe has in the way of goods that can be sold in our markets to pay for these materials. Just how does the government propose then to assist our European NATO partners in carrying out their share of the NATO program?
The whole basis of the C.C.F. argument with regard to NATO is that if NATO is to be successful there must be along with the military program a program of assistance which will enable every partner in the organization to do its full share. To build a military machine at the expense of the economic stability of Europe is to play directly into the hands of our enemies.
I was in Europe last winter and I sat in at the meeting of the French assembly when Mr. Faure formed his new government. That government lasted only five weeks and fell because it could not secure the necessary support for a money bill, the largest part of which was for the NATO program. What is happening in Europe? France has spent

over the past three years billions of dollars and the lives of countless hundreds of her best soldiers in Indo-China. We in Canada have been spared those sacrifices, yet our government refuses economic aid and the raw materials which are necessary for France to carry on. The same may be said of England, which has spent huge sums in Malaya. They have reduced and are reducing their standard of living while we in Canada want cash on the barrelhead for the necessary materials which they need in order to carry on an effective NATO program. On March 30, 1950, the hon, member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) asked the following question, and I quote from page 1376 of Hansard as follows:
1.	Have any Canadian loans or credits, extended to overseas nations since 1946, been wiped out?
2.	If so, what loans or credits, and in what amount?


Mr. Belzile:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
According to a Canadian Press report of March 16 in the Gazette the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), speaking at St. Michael's college in Toronto, said:
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.
I 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.
As our hopes of keeping the peace rise, as our sense of security grows, we in the free world are facing the greatest test of our understanding, our resolution, and our patience. It is so easy to forget why we feel more secure and so easy to forget to pay the premiums on the insurance or even to ask ourselves whether we still need it.
I myself am convinced that if we are not to lose the security now coming within our grasp, we must be ready to keep up the insurance, much as I hope we may never have the fire.
WHat are we insuring against? We are insuring against aggression in the world, but that aggression is on two fronts, the military and the economic. The Prime Minister, according to the actions of this government, has taken out only one type of insurance policy to date, a policy against fire or military action. The government has failed, we believe, to recognize that there should also be a policy on the economic front. That is our objection to the present government policy. The government has put all its eggs in the one basket of military defence without making any comparable contribution toward economic aid, and the communists are making the most of that failure in order to promote

their line of propaganda throughout Europe. I might say that in many cases they are making a success of it.
Surely if the Prime Minister wants to insure against disaster, he should take out a policy that covers both of the dangers which threaten us at the present time. The minister of external affairs has on various occasions stated that the one danger is as great as the other; that we must give economic aid as well as military aid. Apparently he cannot sell that idea to his own government.
1 say that it is irresponsible for a minister in his position to make such statements unless he knows that he has the backing of the government in implementing them, and certainly the fact that for three years we have failed to do anything in this respect in NATO indicates something.


Mr. Pearson:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Does he consider that $300 million which is being voted in our estimates for mutual aid this year is an aid to our NATO partners?


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister said in his own statement the other day that we had not done anything to date.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never said that.


Percy Ellis Wright: The minister is talking about mutual aid. We are asking that it be extended, not that the insurance be dropped.
The Prime Minister criticized those who join in objection to the sacrifices and deprivations without which we cannot have security. Let me point out that we are not complaining about the sacrifices. We are prepared to support greater sacrifices if need be. The leader of this group stated in the house on Wednesday, the 12th of March:
I would be prepared and my party would be prepared to support additional commitments for economic aid so that the peoples of Europe and Asia would be weaned away from the communist propaganda.
It is the attitude of the government in failing to extend the insurance to cover the risk which the minister of external affairs has repeatedly stated, that is the need for economic aid, that we criticize. I therefore move, seconded 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, 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."
Let me read to you what article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty states:
The parties will contribute towards the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by
55704-49J
External Affairs
bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Perhaps I had better also read article 3:
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this treaty, the parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.
You will note that in article 2 emphasis is on economic collaboration, and the putting into effect of better international economic policies and thereby promoting conditions of stability and well-being. Article 3 emphasizes mutual aid to maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack. I ask the minister of external affairs: what has Canada done to establish economic stability in Europe to date? Later I will indicate what the United States has done and is proposing to do in this matter.
In my opinion, Canada to date has made no real sacrifice to obtain greater security by paying some of the premiums of insurance about which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) talked in his address in Toronto. That may seem a strange statement, in view of the fact that we have a military program of some $5 billion over the next three years. But I want to point out the effect of that spending on the Canadian economy as outlined by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in a speech to this house on March 14 when he dealt with the defence program. On page 436 of Hansard he stated:
I cannot think of a better way of summarizing the position than to say that we are taking the defence preparations in our stride. The expectation of acute shortages and of serious dislocations in the civilian sector arising from these defence preparations have not been realized. As has happened on many occasions in the past, the Canadian economy has shown once again that it is capable of a remarkable response to demands for adjustment and for a greater output. I do not believe that these reserves of economic potential' are by any means exhausted.
In closing his speech on that occasion he stated further:
National income and employment are at record levels. The Canadian dollar, without official support, has attained parity with the leading world currency. Canadians are prosperous and national savings are very high, in fact almost as high as in the peak years of world war II. There are some clouds on the horizon and I have no doubt that many difficulties will be encountered before the year is out. But, on the whole, the economic outlook for Canada in 1952 is favourable.
Let us compare that report with the report of Mr. Butler to the British House of Commons on. their economic position, or let us compare it with the economic position of

External Affairs
France or any other of our European partners in NATO. Let me quote you from a report in Keesing, on the economic condition of Europe:
A complete change in the position of many member countries in the European payments union occurred during the eleven months February-Dec-ember, 1951. France and Britain, which since the inception of the union had been consistent creditors, began to incur monthly deficits in April and May respectively: these continued throughout the period under review, turning their previous net cumulative credit positions into net deficits, and obliging Britain by October to start paying gold into the union.
And the minister states, our economy is buoyant and our currency at parity.
There has been some criticism with regard to what the United States has been doing. I want to say at once that they have been doing much more than we in Canada have attempted to do to date. ECA was started in the United States on April 3, 1948; the NATO agreement was entered into on April 4, 1949; the ECA program in the United States ended on December 1, 1951. During that period the United States gave to the world, not only to Europe, some $12,500 million in economic aid. During the same period, Canada gave not one cent to NATO. In fact, according to the questions to which I referred earlier as to whether we had cancelled any debts owing to us during this period, the answer was no. Not only did the United States give this aid, but we in Canada benefited directly as a result of it through offshore purchases of Canadian raw materials to the extent of $1,209 million.
Now, that is one of the reasons why our economy is so buoyant. We are riding on the other fellow's back. Since that form of aid by the United States ended, they brought in the mutual aid bill. I should like to give you a quotation from what the President of the United States said in his address to congress, as reported in the New York Times of March 7, 1952, when referring to the United States 1953 program. He said:
The funds required under the mutual security program fall into two broad categories.
The first of these, which is by far the larger, is for assistance in building up the military strength of friendly nations. This aid' is of two types:
(1)	direct military aid, primarily in the form of military equipment and components thereof, and
(2)	defence support-primarily in the farm of raw materials, commodities, and machinery-to enable other countries to sustain and increase their military efforts, where that type of support produces greater returns in military strength than would an equal amount of direct military aid.
The bulk of the direct military aid and of the defence support will go to strengthen the defences of the free nations in Europe. Amounts for direct military aid and defence support make up about 90 per cent of the total funds recommended for the mutual security program for the fiscal year 1953.

We do not know whether or not congress will pass that amount, but nevertheless those are the amounts recommended to congress. Of that sum they propose to spend a total of $5,889 million in Europe; $4,070 million for direct military aid and $1,819 million for defence support.
In commenting on that, the President had this to say:
To begin with, there is the contribution of straight military equipment and arms to help other nations defend themselves-and thereby help defend us. Of the funds I have asked for more than two-thirds of the total will go for these military items, because the largest gaps in the free world's strength at present are in the actual weapons needed for defence.
The second type of contribution consists of raw materials, commodities and machinery needed to support the military effort. For example, we might send steel to help another country make its own guns instead of sending it the finished weapons.
This is one example of what we call "defence support" for which I am asking $1,700 million.
Later he says this:
There is a third kind of contribution we are making to attain mutual security. There are parts of the world where plows can do a better job in maintaining stability and democracy than tanks or war planes or machine guns. There the communist makes his bid for power and not as a conqueror but in the guise of a friend offering an end to the torments of famine and disease.
I do not think, therefore, that we as Canadians are in any position to criticize anyone at the present time. Our economy is buoyant, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has stated, but it is buoyant because we have failed to take out any insurance on the economic front by making available to our partners under NATO any of the resources which we have except for "cash on the barrelhead".
The only group that I know of in Canada who have made any sacrifice in this line are the western Canadian wheat growers who have, for the last three years under the world wheat agreement, made one of the basic foods of the world available to Europe at a price from 30 to 40 cents below the price of class II wheat sold on the open market. I want to be quite frank in stating that the western wheat producer is getting a bit tired of being the only group in Canada who are prepared to make an economic sacrifice at this time. The producers of other raw materials that are needed, aluminum, copper, pulp, etc., are asking and getting all that the traffic will bear.
Surely if this government is honest in the statements made by the responsible ministers, that economic aid is as essential as military aid, they should be prepared to do more than they have done to date. In conclusion, I want to say this. If the Prime Minister feels that

there are some poor souls in Canada who are being deluded into a feeling of false security at this time, he had better look into his own cabinet and not across the floor of the house.


Mr. Victor Quelch (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) spoke he gave the views of this group on a number of points that had been raised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he spoke in this debate. I merely intend to elaborate on a couple of points, namely the situation in Korea and the effect of the defence program upon the economy of Canada and that of other participating nations.
First of all, I should like to say a few words on the situation in Korea. I think great concern is felt in this country-and I found it also in the United States among those people to whom I spoke-with regard to the situation. By no stretch of the imagination can it be called a popular war. As a matter of fact, I did not meet one individual in the United States who did not feel that a mistake had been made when we intervened in Korea. As a matter of fact, they blamed the whole thing upon Truman. I suppose the Secretary of State for External Affairs will say that I must have been talking to Republicans. I may say, however, that as a matter of fact I was in one of the states that is represented by Democrats.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke, he outlined our objective in Korea in these words, as reported at page 665 of Hansard:
Certainly, all governments, and that includes the Canadian government, with forces in Korea, agree as to the desirability of bringing that war to an end as quickly as possible; but, as I have said before, on honourable terms which do not betray the purpose we had in intervening there in the first place. That purpose was-and remains-to defeat aggression there, nothing more. And we have not done that yet.
I would point out that before we intervened in Korea the objective was to set up a unified, independent, free government over the whole of Korea, both north and south. That was our objective before the aggression. I have always understood that after the aggression that still continued to be our objective. The resolution that was passed on October 7 in 1950 certainly made that declaration. The hon. member for Peace River quoted from that resolution but he left out what I consider to be one important clause in it. The resolution reads-


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: What are you quoting from?


Victor Quelch: I am quoting from the United Nations general assembly resolution that was
External Affairs
distributed amongst the delegation there. The resolution is headed "the Problem of the Independence of Korea". On page 2, it states as follows:
Recalling that the essential objective of the resolutions of the general assembly referred to above was the establishment of a unified, independent and democratic government of Korea . . .
It then goes on in various clauses, and I want to drop down to clause (d) because the hon. member for Peace River did not quote that one. Clause (d) reads as follows:
United Nations forces should not remain in any part of Korea otherwise than so far as necessary for achieving the objectives specified in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above.
What does paragraph (b) say? It says:
All constituent acts be taken, including the holding of elections, under the auspices of the United Nations, for the establishment of a unified, independent and democratic government in the sovereign state of Korea.
From that resolution one might gather that our forces will remain in Korea until such time as that objective has been achieved namely the setting up of a unified government over the whole of Korea and, if necessary, that those forces will be used for that purpose. I do not see how you can come to any other conclusion than that from the statement contained in the resolution. I would therefore say that our purpose is not merely to defeat aggression in Korea. That is merely a means to an end. The end is the setting up of that unified and free government.
On the other hand, am I wrong in that regard? That was the objective on October 7, 1950. Since that time have we changed our objective? Are we now giving consideration perhaps to the advisability of setting up once more two Koreas-north Korea and south Korea-with the 38th parallel between them? If we do that, I think we shall be betraying the people of Korea who have made great sacrifices up to the present time.
The minister stated that aggression anywhere should be met by collective resistance. On the other hand, however, he admits that it may not always be possible for the United Nations to meet aggression wherever it is committed because we have limitations to our strength. After all, the main danger spot today is Europe, and we cannot afford to dissipate our forces or spread them over too great an area, lest we may not be able to provide the defence forces which are essential in the defence of Europe. I agree entirely that our action in regard to the meeting of aggression is limited, and that we cannot probably hope to meet it at every point. But in my opinion, in deciding whether or not we shall meet an act of aggression or whether or not we shall intervene, careful

External Affairs
consideration should be given to the effect which that intervention will have upon the economy of the country against which the act of aggression has been committed.
For instance, let us take the example of Korea. We now know what the consequences of intervention have been to Korea. When this matter was first brought before the house during the special session, I think it was made quite clear by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) that the North Koreans, in their attack, were being supported by red China and that therefore there was every reason to anticipate that during the course of the conflict there China would intervene. When I spoke at that time, I pointed out that the Prime Minister had stated that he hoped there would be peace within ten months but that in my opinion there would be no chance of peace within ten months unless China kept out of the war, and that there was no reason to think that once we started to defeat North Korea China would keep out of the war. Therefore, as I say, we surely went into that conflict with our eyes wide open, knowing that it might result in China's intervening.
What has been the cost of the war to date to the Koreans in South Korea? The cost has been ghastly, we know. Thousands upon thousands of civilians have died, partly as a result of enemy action, partly as a result of our own action, and partly as a result of starvation. It seems to me that to adopt the simple expedient of destroying the people in order to liberate them is a policy of idiocy. Perhaps that is the wrong word. I would say that it is a policy of brutality and that it cannot be justified. I suppose the Koreans will rejoice if a unified and independent government is finally set up, but I think many of them will consider that the cost has been altogether too high. I therefore say that in the future I think careful consideration should be given to the effect that an intervention will have upon the nation against which that act of aggression has been committed. The cost may be too high. I think the cost has been far too high with regard to Korea.
In this house we have had resolutions about such things as crime comics; but I wonder whether the crime comics ever did as much harm in this country as has the type of broadcast we have listened to with regard to Korea, about "operation killer", with reports about how we have dropped jelly bombs to burn out entire villages in South Korea in order to smoke out a few communist snipers. That kind of talk-and may I say that it is talk which I think should never have been allowed on the radio in the

first place, just to excite people-has caused a great deal of hostility to the operations in Korea. Maybe the reports were exaggerated. I hope that they were. I am afraid, however, that there is little reason to believe that they have been exaggerated because we have seen reports by different correspondents who have come back here and who have written lurid details with regard to what has taken place in that country.
I know that it has been argued, in support of intervention in Korea, that it will teach aggressors in the future that aggression does not pay; but I would say that it will teach the victim of aggression that intervention does not pay because the cost of intervention is too high. Whatever happens in Korea now, I hope that we shall not give up until we have reached that objective. The Koreans have already paid a tremendous price and it would be a ghastly affair if, after suffering as they have suffered and after having made the sacrifices which they have made, we were willing to accept any other objective than that of setting up a unified government over the whole of Korea. If the United Nations now settle for anything less than that, I would say that their prestige will suffer a blow from which it will probably never recover; and undoubtedly the North Koreans and the Chinese would look upon that event as a major victory for their forces because the thing which they seem to be most opposed to is allowing the United Nations to set up a government of the people's choice-although they no doubt think it will be of the United Nations' choice, it will be of the people's choice-over both North Korea and South Korea.
I turn now to the other question. The people in Canada, and I found the same in the United States of America, are very perturbed over the present international situation, because I think many of them feel this way. They know that when two major powers engage in an armament race the end is generally war. I think history records that. I might say the inevitable end of it is war. But, on the other hand, just so long as the U.S.S.R. have armaments far greater than our own, and so long as they continue to expand those arms, I believe we are bound to do the same. I cannot see any chance of doing otherwise. The main danger that I see is that if we do finally catch up and reach equality with the U.S.S.R. in armaments, then there may be a tendency on the part of some hothead to use some minor incident as an excuse to precipitate a war. That is the thing that I am most fearful of, even more so after being down in the states,

because there are many people down there who would actually precipitate a war today, because they think it is bound to come, and therefore we should act before Russia is any stronger. There is that danger. That is common knowledge. We have seen the expression published in the papers by certain prominent military individuals in that country.
I would say that the only chance of peace in the world today is for us to try to reach an understanding with the nations behind the iron curtain. I quite realize that that is easier said than done. It takes two parties to reach an understanding, and there is no indication at the present time that the other side is willing to reach an understanding on the question of disarmament. The main stumbling block seems to be the question of inspection. They do not trust an international commission to carry that out. It is unfortunate that that type of distrust should exist. I also feel that perhaps we are going a little bit too far in that regard. I recall that when I was at the UN two years ago it seemed to be the general policy of Canada and the U.S.A. to vote against everything that was submitted by the U.S.S.R., no matter how harmless the resolution might seem, no matter whether there appeared to be some merit in the resolution. We continued to vote against it on the principle that, as it was pointed out [DOT]to me, it was not so much what was contained in the resolution as the intent that was behind it. That may have been necessary, but I hope that if eventually we have any reason to believe there is a change of heart on the part of the communist world, and if they do really become sincere in their desire for peace, we will recognize that change and not say that it does not make any difference what is in the resolution, we know what it really means. That is a very dangerous attitude to take, and there has been quite a bit of criticism in Britain regarding the United States of America for being very very intolerant on that question and not being willing to compromise cn even minor points. I am not advocating that there should be compromise on major principles, but I think we could very well compromise on some minor points that would not affect the situation very much, but might help to create a little better feeling in the UN.
The hon. member for Peace River made it clear that we support NATO in its endeavour to build up collectively the defences of the nations of the western world, but at the same time he warned of the need to cushion the economies of those nations against the
External Affairs
impact of the defence program. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to talk about the desirability of negotiating through strength. On the other hand, we have got to realize that you cannot negotiate through strength unless your internal economy is also strong. Unfortunately, it would appear that the defence program which we have before us now may seriously undermine the economies of many of the member nations in Europe.
When the hon. member for Peace River spoke he quoted from the magazine U.S. News and World Report. I have another quotation that I should like to read. It is found in the statement made by I. F. Stone. I frankly admit there are many things written by this man that I do not agree with. The only reason I quote this statement is that it appeared in a New York paper on the 9th of this month and I agree with him entirely. The statement reads:
The U.S. needs that arms race as a form of pump-priming;
This is the statement that also appeared in the U.S. News and World Report. I go on:
. . . our output is so huge that the burden can be borne without serious decline in living standards. For western Europe the arms race is a luxury beyond its means.
In Britain, the arms program means the diversion of machines and metals from the export trades on which her imported bread and meat depend. Belgium, the one west European country to achieve recovery by orthodox "free enterprise" mechanisms, is being forced by the arms race into restrictionism.
I think all of us would agree with the statement that this great burden is not being spread evenly over the nations that are participating. I have no doubt that this program is helping to maintain United States employment, and the same thing may be said about Canada to some extent, because if peace came overnight we would have a serious problem in this country to fight unemployment. But that is not the situation in Europe; for every time they have to divert a certain amount of wealth to their defence program instead of to bread and meat, it means that some people there are going to have their standards of living reduced very greatly. In that regard I say, if we really are sincere about the need to build up our defence program, and build it up rapidly, we will have to spread that burden more evenly upon the people and nations that are participating in this defence program.
I had hoped that the parliamentary assistant to the minister would have said something about what we are going to do under article 2 of NATO to help those nations. I agree that the technical assistance program is a very fine one, but in proportion to the

External Affairs
magnitude of the problem it has not so far gone very far, and it will be of no immediate help to the nations of NATO in aiding them to cushion their economies against the defence project. It is not meant for that purpose, I will agree, but, as I say, it will be of very little immediate help to nations of NATO.
The point I am interested in is this. What does the Canadian government propose to do at the present time to meet the situation that I have referred to, namely, the need for helping those nations in NATO to cushion their economies against these great defence expenditures? I was quite concerned when I read a statement, apparently made by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), in which he subscribed to the policy of helping Britain make sterling convertible. It was his opinion, apparently, that convertibility should be achieved just as rapidly as possible, and therefore he supported Britain and other nations in restricting their imports from the dollar area. In my opinion, if at a time like this when those nations are having tremendous difficulty in meeting their obligations under the defence program, on top of that we still further aggravate their problems by trying to insist that they restore convertibility, then we will be sabotaging the defence effort just in exactly the same way that we sabotaged our defence effort prior to 1939, when we permitted our industries to operate only 50 per cent of their capacity.
The reason I ask, what does the government propose to do in order to help the European nations cushion their economy, is that I consider there is a great deal that Canada can do without asking for any extra sacrifices on the part of the people of this country, because we can make a tremendous contribution to the people of Europe in the form of food without reducing the standard of living of any people in this country. I say that for the simple reason that at the present time farmers in Canada are actually being discouraged from increasing their production by officials of the government. In the face of the want that exists in the world today, when you have millions of people on the verge of starvation, when you see the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) of this country suggesting to the farmers that it might be unwise for them to increase production because there would not be any market for it, then I say the government is not taking the steps that it could take to help cushion those economies.
I just want to quote, from the March 29 issue of Saturday Night, an article headed

"Back to Farm Surpluses and Canned Meat Market," written by Michael Barkway. I want to read two or three sections:
For nearly two weeks now, Canadian pork has been going into cans because there was nothing else to do with it.
At the beginning of March the available cold storage was full. Forty million pounds of pork were in store compared with about 15 million last year.
There was some talk of giving it away to Britain or to somebody else who needed it. But the emergency decision was to put it in cans.
No one knows how much pork will have to be canned. It will partly depend on how much Canadians eat this summer. But there will be millions of pounds of it-perhaps 60 or 70 million pounds. No one knows, either, where we may be able to sell it or at what price. One hopeful sign is that the U.S. spring crop of hogs is pretty low this year.
This is an interesting point. In face of the fact that millions of people are facing starvation in Europe, and European nations are having a hard job to maintain their economy in the face of defence programs, he rejoices in the fact, apparently, that there will be a poor crop of hogs in the United States this spring.
Now, what is the effect of this defence program on Great Britain? Again I wish to quote from Saturday Night, this time at page 4, where in an editorial headed "This Is Sterling's Crisis" it says:
It is a formidable thing to say, but this is the crisis of sterling. The Oxford dictionary defines this overworked word as meaning "the point in the progress of a disease when a change takes place which is decisive of recovery or death." Death can come quickly. Recovery is always slow and painful. We must be prepared for a long period of convalescence for sterling; premature rushes at convertibility will merely end in relapse. Canada must therefore adapt itself to several years during which the sterling countries will be able to buy only necessities from us.
Is that necessarily so? Are we not in a position to do something about it, so as to make it possible for European nations to get more food from us, or more food than is allowed under the restrictions they have imposed upon exports from dollar countries? Must we discourage the production of food in this country while, at the same time, that food is urgently needed in many parts of the world? I would say very definitely that that is not the case.
There are many ways and means by which we can encourage an increase in the production of food, and provide markets for it where it is most needed. And, just for fear someone may say that I am not making a fair statement when I say that the production of food has been discouraged in this country, let me quote briefly from a statement made by the Minister of Agriculture. I mentioned it in the speech I delivered during the debate

in reply to the speech from the throne. However, when I make a charge of that kind in the house, I believe I should produce the evidence at the time I make it.
I quote now from a speech delivered by the Minister of Agriculture before commission I of the food and agriculture organization of November 23, 1951. At page 5 the minister said:
Our barley supplies are better than ever before, and our oat supplies above the long time average. These, together with our feed wheat position, make it possible to produce more meat and dairy products.
I am afraid this increased production of meat and dairy products will not materialize unless fears are removed from the minds of our farmers. The meat and dairy farmer has no assurance he could dispose of his surplus if it were produced. His experience suggests to him that there is no outlet.
And then in a statement he made before the Canadian Federation of Agriculture the minister said that-
-as long as Britain lacked the dollars to buy Canadian cheese and bacon and eggs he was not going to tell any farmer to produce more hogs, more eggs or more cheese.
When the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture commented on the speech by the Minister of Agriculture he said that, in view of that being the situation, farmers would be crazy to expand their production at this time.
Mind you, that was at the annual convention of the leading farm organizations in this country. That word will go right back into every part of the dominion. That word will go back, that it would not be wise for the farmers to expand production at this time, because there are no markets for it. Then, can anyone say that we are playing our full part in helping to feed the needy nations of the world? Are we playing our full part under article 2 of NATO? Are we playing our full part when it is frankly admitted that the defence program will make it difficult for some of the nations to maintain a satisfactory standard of living?
How can anyone make that claim, that we are playing our full part, when at the very time that this critical situation develops the Minister of Agriculture and the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture advise the farmers that it would not be wise to expand their production of food?
That is why I say that we could help under article 2 of NATO, and that we could do it without reducing the standard of living of the people in this country in any way. It could be done by increasing the production of agricultural produce, which would result in greater prosperity than we have at the present time.
External Affairs
That is a question I would like to hear the minister explain. I am not blaming him for this condition, because I realize it is government policy. But I do hope he will bring pressure upon the government to find ways and means by which the farmers can be encouraged to produce the food that is so urgently needed in many parts of the world today.
There is one thing we can never justify, and that is the curtailing of production of food in a time of actual physical want. We make fine declarations at the United Nations that never again will food be destroyed by man whilst there are hungry people. But if we allow this condition to exist in Canada, in the light of the condition disclosed before the United Nations, we are guilty of hypocrisy.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he speaks, to answer two questions:	First of all, are we
backing down on our objective to establish a unified and independent government in Korea and, secondly, what is the government going to do to encourage the production of food and make it available to the NATO nations?


Mr. J. A. Bradelte (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a feeling of some diffidence that I rise to speak in this very important debate. First of all, I wish to make one or two comments about some of the speeches made this afternoon.
I always listen with keen attention to the speeches of the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I listened to him with particular attention when he was quoting an article written by a Canadian journalist who had visited the United States, indicating that he had found out that the American people were fully seized of the serious situation in the world, and in which he attempted to create the impression that the people of Canada are not familiar with it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am now speaking for the people whom I have the honour to represent; but I believe I can speak not only for myself, and my section of the country, but for Canada generally when I say that I believe the whole of Canada realizes the seriousness of the situation. But we have followed conduct similar to that we followed during two world wars:	We have kept our
heads high, because we have known that we have been doing our duty to civilization, freedom and democracy. The same principle applies with as great force today as it did during those two wars, in facing the present difficulties.
I am somewhat surprised by the amendment moved by the C.C.F., one which seems
778

External Affairs
to take a good deal of glory, or a measure of delight, in trying to belittle the efforts of Canada. It tries to leave the impression that since the close of the second war Canada has not played her part, or the part we should have played in helping in the rehabilitation of Europe and the rest of the world.
I know however that if their amendment were adopted they would be the first to criticize the government if, in implementing what they now request, taxes were raised again. What amount of money would they want Canada to spend on military defence? How many billions of dollars would they expect Canada to spend in helping to rehabilitate the rest of the world? I say they should be more definite in their statement.
We must realize that, since the close of the war, we have given a great deal of help. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) has referred to the Marshall plan, and said that Canada had not contributed to it. We did not, and for a very good reason. The Marshall plan was an American plan. But at the same time we found it possible to help in many other ways the people of Europe and in other parts of the world.
For instance, without mentioning the Colombo plan, at the present time by way of mutual aid Canada is giving $200 million. Some people are thinking in terms of the Atlantic pact or the Pacific pact, in terms of millions of men in uniform, but they seem to forget that Canada has a population of only about 14 million. We have not 50 or 100 million people in this country. Our resources are not unlimited; they are to some extent limited.
I shall be interested to see how vigorously the opposition criticizes the government when it comes to the matter of taxation. The hon. member for Melfort tried to create the impression that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) wanted to create a spirit of over-optimism. The statement by the minister a few days ago was a very excellent one, indeed, and one which recognized-as it is recognized by other people-the heavy taxation we have in Canada. And we have that taxation, not only to implement our national services and to meet our national budget and military defence, but so that we may be able to help our friends in every way possible.
That is why I am going to vote against the amendment. Again I do not like the process of decrying Canada, particularly in the light of the fact that Great Britain, the United States and every other nation of the world which knows what we have accomplished do not hesitate to say what a fine part Canada

has played. We have received praise, and recognition too, for what we are doing at the present time.
There are Canadians who seem to take some pleasure in belittling our reputation, purely and simply for political reasons.
I do not wish to embarrass the Secretary of State for External Affairs but, in passing, I would point out that in my constituency we have a number of study groups who study national affairs, and the actions of the Department of External Affairs. I can tell the house that I am in a position to state that they admire the minister. They know that he has done and that he will continue to do a marvellous job.
He has received praise not only from the people of Canada but from people of every nation. Every nation of the world has seen this fine man in action. The minister has given of his great talent and of his time and energy to the work he is doing not only for Canada but for the cause of peace throughout the world. I say that sincerely-and I know he will realize I am speaking sincerely when I refer to this matter.
Those who belittle what he has been doing should keep in mind that people in other nations of the world recognize his qualities, and the fact that he is doing his full share. I repeat that, in speaking this afternoon, I am trying to voice the sentiments of the people I have the honour to represent. I am convinced that Canadians have very good judgment. Generally speaking, the Canadian people have good judgment. I always remember in our Liberal caucuses the late Mr. King used to tell us to listen and follow public opinion and we would never go astray. I have been trying to listen to public opinion as far as my own constituency is concerned and I find generally speaking they have only the highest praise for the accomplishments of Canada, nationally and internationally, and are proud of the fact that some very high and important positions were offered her.
I represent a pioneering section of this country. We do not do things up there in the easy way. The resources in that section of northern Ontario and northern Quebec are great but not unlimited, but we get along because of our energy, our strength, our work and our thrift. We are pushing ahead in this section of Canada and today northern Quebec and northern Ontario supports nearly 250,000 people who are making a good living there, which population was non-existent fifty years ago. Those people are realists. They do not keep their heads in the clouds all the time, but are realists and practical.

I remember during the last war the opposition was deploring the fact that we were not doing all that we possibly could. Some newspapers advocated that we should have at least one million men in Europe. Was that realistic? Was it not true that among all the nations that took part in the previous war Canada made one of the finest contributions in all departments? The same applies just as forcibly to the present situation. Canada is a member of the United Nations and through the United Nations we have made some commitments.
It is suggested by the economic and social council of the United Nations that as much as $19,000 million a year for an indefinite number of years be spent in developing resources in the underdeveloped countries. We will be part and parcel of that work whenever that policy is implemented. I am not going to prophesy, but I believe that as on previous occasions Canada will do her part.
The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet (Mr. Lesage) made a fine speech this afternoon and indicated the sentiments of the Canadian people about NATO. He did not speak as a partisan, and neither did the minister of external affairs. The positions they occupy are too responsible. They have too heavy an obligation and they cannot afford to do that. He told us very plainly that in the help we give to other nations we must consider their national aspirations and pride. We must endeavour to see that the money is distributed through the proper channels. The hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) would seem to indicate that we should disburse hundreds of millions of dollars to any government which may be in power at the time in some sections of Asia. Would that mean that proper help will be given to these people?
Let us be constructive when making statements of that kind. Let us be reasonable, not only with ourselves but with the people who are involved. As far as I am concerned, and I think as far as every member of parliament is concerned, we want poverty and need to disappear from the face of the earth if possible, but that will not be done in a day. This work will have to be done through certain national or regional agencies and it will have to be acceptable to the people themselves, always having in mind the respect of the people involved.
You only have to read in the papers what happened recently in the French Alps to show the deep attachment to the past. The government of France wanted to set up a hydroelectric development in the Alps, I believe, and it was necessary to move the people from 55704-50-J
External Affairs
a small village. The government had been trying for two years to get these people to move but they refuse because they are so deeply attached to then- own little pieces of ground which their ancestors have occupied for so many generations, and they had to be forced out of their homes, by the flooding waters of the project.
These are factors which absolutely must be considered in giving assistance to certain parts of the world. We know that it is more blessed to give than to receive, and in this connection we have that great generous nation, the United States, as an example. Through the Marshall plan it has done more to aid the world than any other nation in past history has ever done. Assistance under this plan was offered, not only to friendly nations but to Czechoslovakia and to Poland, both behind the iron curtain and many others. They were compelled to refuse by the U.S.S.R. Do you think for one single moment that the Marshall plan has always been well received or fully appreciated? No. On many occasions it brought unfair and bitter abuses on the giver.
These are all factors which as practical men and women we must consider before we go too far on that score, so that our help will accomplish its full purpose.
I well remember after world war I when my old mother country France was considered to be militaristic and did not receive the protection that was promised and Germany was considered to be the poor little nation that had to be saved from its financial difficulties. What happened? The United States and Great Britain poured hundreds of millions of dollars into Germany and then twenty years later she came close to conquering the world. These are factors we must be very careful about, and that are worth remembering.
I am quite in agreement with the Colombo plan. If $20 million or $25 million is not sufficient the government and parliament will provide all the necessary money. But how can Canada deal fully with countries having a total population of 450 million? Twenty-five million dollars would be only a beginning in offering them help. How far can we go on that score? We must try to achieve an equilibrium. These are all matters which of necessity we must consider thoroughly, and study from all angles.
I want to say a few words during this debate about the situation in Canada. Canada has never attempted to moralize to any other nation. Canada took part in two wars of which she was not an instigator. Those wars started on the continent of Europe where for so many generations and centuries wars have started and caused turmoil throughout not

External Affairs
only the countries of Europe but other sections of the world. We took part in those wars because we knew that we were on the side of freedom and democracy.
When peace came Canada indicated that she did not want any territorial aggrandizement or any maritime aggrandizement. All we wanted was peace to predominate among the nations of the world. In taking that attitude we gained the respect and gratitude of every nation. I say that deliberately. By that fact we were put in a position where, without dictating to other nations, without endeavouring to indicate the line of conduct they should follow, we could tell them about the seriousness of the situation. We could tell them how dangerous and explosive it is at the present time, and the necessity of honest compromises and of solidarity.
I believe it is the duty of the NATO countries of the United States, Great Britain, France, Italy and other nations of the world to endeavour to be friendly and to comprehend one another. I know it is impossible to have perfect unity in the world, since nations as well as individuals are apt to have differences. But if we honestly try to avoid friction between the nations we will be taking a real step toward peace in the world in our time.
There is a certain group in this House of Commons which at times likes to take a slap at the United States. I am not one of those. I consider it is fortunate for us that .ve are the neighbour of this big, powerful and generous nation. I am not going to emphasize that there are three thousand miles of unguarded border, but that is the fact. That fact is known to every citizen of the world. There is not a similar situation existing in any other place in the world. It is our bounden obligation as it is their bounden duty to have the good feelings between our two countries continue, to be continually cultivated and maintained.
Sometimes because of their great strength they do certain things, I will not say that we deplore but that we find hard to comprehend. For instance we are their best customer and yet for some incomprehensible reasons they have increased the tariff against us. However, when you take it as a whole the United States is not only a generous nation; by circumstances which are not of	its	creation it	hasbeen called upon to be	the	leader	of	thecivilized world. That is	the	role it	has toperform today. That is	not	a role	it	was
looking for, because it will be remembered that under the Monroe doctrine the United
[Mr. Bradette.l
States indicated that it did not want anything to do with Europe. It wanted to work out its own salvation, to build its own destiny.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
On the order for second reading of Senate bins:
Mr. Speaker:: Divorce bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that these bills should stand, as the evidence is still not in our hands.


Mr. Winkler:: I submit that even if we had the evidence before us, it would serve no useful purpose. In considering the second reading of these bills, we are concerned with the principle and not with the detailed evidence which might be useful in committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a precedent has been established. Your Honour has never asked the house to go ahead with any divorce bill in connection with which we had not received the evidence. I submit that for this house to give second reading to even one bill at this time, without our having received the evidence in connection with that bill, would be making a farce of the whole business.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I can merely reiterate that it is no farce to consider the principle. We could consider the principle tonight, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not decide whether or not the house can proceed. I cannot recall any precedent where the Speaker has prevented the house from considering a divorce bill, whether or not the evidence was before the house. It is for the house to determine that; I cannot determine it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My only point, Mr. Speaker, was that Your Honour has always acceded to a request that any of these bills be delayed until the evidence is in our possession. I submit you should stand by the position you have taken on former occasions.


Howard Waldemar Winkler: I again submit that we could not use the evidence even if we did have it before us. We are concerned with the principle, and we should proceed.

Private Bills-Divorce


Mr. Speaker:: On the point raised by the hon. member tor Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I do not think I have ever entered into a discussion as to whether the house should or should not proceed with a bill when the evidence is not before it. The house has made that decision, and I have only carried out its wishes in allowing the bill to stand. I am sure I have never made a ruling with respect to the matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not want to press the point, but I thought I had made it clear that I was not claiming Your Honour had made a ruling. I merely said Your Honour has acceded to my request on other occasions when I have said I did not think we should proceed without the evidence. If it is a matter that has to be decided now, I think Your Honour should consider the point very carefully.
We have quite a number of these divorce bills on the order paper before us. Each bill calls for the dissolution of a particular marriage. I submit that before we can deal with any one of these bills we should at least have in our hands the evidence connected with it. There are members in this house who frequently make the point that the passing of divorce bills by parliament is to be preferred to referring them to a court, on the ground that there is no set procedure for these bills in parliament as there would be in court. The argument is made by these members that each and every bill is a special case by itself. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier) made that point yesterday in another debate. If that is the case, if each and every one of these bills is a separate proposition, standing on its own feet, surely before we consider the second reading of each and every one of these bills we should have before us all the relevant information.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this house would be making a very sad mistake in the eyes of the public if we were to be asked by the hon. member or anyone else to proceed with these bills tonight, without having any of the relevant information before us. I submit for Your Honour's consideration that you should ask the house to allow these bills to stand until we have the evidence.


Mr. Speaker:: I hardly think it would be proper for me to enter into a debate in this house in an attempt to persuade any hon. member to allow a bill to stand. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated that I have acceded to his request to allow a bill to stand when the evidence was not before the house. I do not think he is right in that statement. I think he will recall
that the house has acceded to his request that the bill stand. I have taken no part in any such argument.
The hon. member may recall that yesterday private bills were called and I started to put second reading. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that the evidence was not before the house and a number of hon. members said "stand". At the request of the hon. members, I allowed the bills to stand as the sponsor did not object. I am informed by the Clerk that the evidence upon which this bill is founded is before the house at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk reminds me that a few days ago I informed the house that these bills had come to this house from the Senate, and that the evidence had come from the Senate at the same time and had been tabled in the house. The evidence is, therefore, before the house even if it has not been distributed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit there is quite a difference between the evidence being in the possession of the house, perhaps locked up in a safe somewhere, and being in the possession of the members of this house. The practice is that this evidence is printed and distributed to the members, and that has not yet been done.


Mr. Speaker:: I am informed that the evidence is in the Journals branch, and any member of the house can see the evidence now or could have seen it a few days ago. I know of no rule by which I can prevent the hon. member from moving the second reading of the bill. If the hon. member wants to move second reading of Bill No. 10, I shall have to receive the motion. Would the house be prepared to consider second reading of all these bills at the same time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. Mr. Speaker, one at a time if they are going to be taken at all.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Speaker, it has been stated that the evidence has been tabled and is in the Journals branch. Some member might have that evidence out, and that would only give one member of the House of Commons an opportunity to see it. I feel, therefore, that you would be creating a precedent if you allowed the bills to go through that way.


Mr. Dewar:: Do you read them all?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: No.


Austin Edwin Dewar: What are you worrying about then?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Just the principle.

Private Bills-Divorce


Austin Edwin Dewar: You haven't got any.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I think that should be withdrawn.


Mr. Hodgson:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: One of the hon. members over there said that my colleague, the member for Peterborough West (Mr. Fraser), had no principles. I want him to retract that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: I did not hear the statement.
I am sure that if the other members of the house heard it, the whole house would agree that the statement is not correct. The hon. member has the highest of principles.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I read citation 769 of Beauchesne's third edition.
The second reading of a private bill corresponds to the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the house affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure.
Now, hon. members will note these words: There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons; but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill-
And hon. members will note these words:
-conditionally and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee.
Then citation 770-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would Your Honour read the rest of citation 769? I think the next sentence is significant.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes, I will continue reading citation 769:
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is obj ectionable-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: That is quite right.
Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
Then citation 770 reads as follows:
The house does not profess to decide upon the second reading as to the truth or otherwise of the allegations of fact upon which a proposed bill is based, and in conceding a second reading to a private bill, the house is regarded as merely giving its sanction to its general principle on the hypothesis that the committee to which it is afterwards referred finds those allegations proved. It is usual, therefore, to allow a second reading, except where the bill enunciates some principle which the house is not prepared to affirm.

As I have said, there is in the rules nothing that I know of whereby I can refuse to put the motion for second reading if the hon. member proposes to move second reading of the bill.



SHIRLEY DOREEN ROWE

["The hon.\nmember continues:\nIf there is any disillusionment among the Chinese people at the present time, and I think there may be, regarding their new communist rulers, we certainly cannot expect any support from the Chinese for the return of Chiang Kai-shek.\nOn motion of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) the debate was adjourned."]
Howard Waldemar Winkler: the second reading of Bill No. 10, for the relief of Shirley Doreen Rowe.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Winkler) knows, there is absolutely nothing personal between him and me in the opposition that he and I get into with respect to these divorce bills. I want to reaffirm that fact so far as I am concerned tonight, because I realize that he is simply doing an unpleasant duty which has been imposed upon him in that he has been made the chairman of the committee on miscellaneous private bills. Nevertheless, I am sorry that he takes the position that this Bill No. 10 should be proceeded with tonight. I accept the ruling that Your Honour has made that no one can stop the handling of these bills in this way if the hon. member bringing them in wishes to proceed with them. However, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Lisgar to another sentence or two from the citation that Mr. Speaker read just a moment or two ago.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not arguing with Mr. Speaker at all. I am discussing with the hon. member for Lisgar-


An hon. Member:: You should be discussing the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am discussing with the hon, member for Lisgar the wisdom or otherwise of asking the house to deal with Bill No. 10 tonight. I am quoting from citation 769, the last sentence of which reads as follows:
This is the first occasion on which the bill is before the house otherwise than pro forma or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know, and I submit that hardly any member in this house knows, whether or not we should attempt the defeat of Bill No. 10 which is now before us. We have no information on which to base a decision. The bill relates to two persons. I do not even wish to put their names upon Hansard. I will use their initials. It deals with the lives of one S. D. K. and one C. A. R. We do not have the evidence, although we have the bill, but it tells us practically nothing. I have it in my hand. It is Bill E

in the other place, sometimes called the Senate, and is Bill No. 10 on the order paper of this house. Apparently they were married on February 16, 1945, at the village of Topsail in the province of Newfoundland. In other words, the first divorce to come before us at this session of parliament comes from the province of Newfoundland. The husband in the case is said to be domiciled in Canada but he is at present residing in the city of Syracuse, in the state of New York. As I say, we are advised by the terms of the bill that they were married in Newfoundland on the date that I have given; and we are advised that S. D. K. alleges that C. A. R. has committed adultery. On the basis of that advice, we are asked to dissolve the marriage. That is all we know.


An hon. Member:: What more do you want?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have no evidence. We do not know whether or not adultery was committed. Even the evidence we get is not always satisfactory. But here we have not one scrap of evidence at all. I accept the intimation that you have given to us, Mr. Speaker, that that evidence has been received from the Senate. A few days ago, when you made that announcement to the house, you probably had it in your hand. It has since gone down to the Journals office and there it is; that is to say, there is one copy of it. Perchance some one member has got it out and may have it in his office, or maybe it is still down there in the Journals office. At any rate, it has not been printed. As members we do not have it. I for one have not seen that evidence at all. For us to be called upon, under these circumstances, to dissolve the marriage of S. D. K. and C. A. R. without knowing anything further is, I submit, making even more of a farce out of this whole business than it has been across the years. Because I feel that we should not go ahead with this case under these circumstances, but that the consideration of this bill should be delayed until we get the evidence, I therefore move, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bryce), that the debate on the second reading of this bill be now adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion? Those in favour of the motion will say "yea".


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will say "nay".


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Private Bills-Divorce And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.	
The house divided on the motion (Mr.	
Knowles) which was negatived on the follow-	
ing division:	
	YEAS
	Messrs:
Argue	Knight
Beyerstein	Knowles
Blackmore	Noseworthy
Blair	Poulin
Bradette	Quelch
Bryce	Shaw
Catherwood	Stewart (Winnipeg North)
Coldwell	Thatcher
Fair	Thomas
Fraser	Ward
Gagnon	White (Hastings-
Hees	Peterborough)
Herridge	Wright
Hodgson	Wylie-28.
Jones	
	NAYS
	Messrs:
Abbott	Jeffery
Anderson	Kickham
Applewhaite	Kirk (Digby-Yarmouth)
Balcom	Laing
Bater	Macdonald (Edmonton
Bennett	East)
Bonnier	MacKenzie
Boucher	MacLean (Cape Breton
Bradley	North and Victoria)
Brown (Essex West)	MacNaught
Cameron	Macnaughton
Campney	McCulloch
Carter	Mclvor
Cavers	McMillan
Conacher	Mayhew
Corry	Mott
Crestohl	Murray (Oxford)
Croll	Prudham
Decore	Robertson
Denis	Rooney
Dewar	Rousseau
Eyre	Simmons
Ferrie	Sinclair
Follwell	Sinnott
Garland	Smith (York North)
Gibson	Stick
Gregg	Stuart (Charlotte)
Harris (Grey-Bruce)	Studer
Harrison	Viau
Healy	Weaver
Hellyer	Welbourn
Helme	Whiteside
Hetland	Whitman
Hosking	Winkler
Huffman	Winters
Hunter	Wood-71.
James


Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: I find myself in somewhat of a quandary tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Just tonight?


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I suggest, sir, that my hon. friends on the Liberal side find themselves in somewhat of a quandary, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.

Private Bills-Divorce


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: On this particular bill, No. 10, I am asked to decide whether the particular home which we are discussing shall or shall not be broken up.


An hon. Member:: It is already broken up.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: I know nothing of that nor of the principals in this particular case. I was interested in hearing-it was the first time I heard it-from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the principals in this particular case come from our new province of Newfoundland. Evidently the people of Newfoundland are now going to adopt the same method of obtaining divorces as has been adopted previously by the province of Quebec.
I am not going to argue here tonight, sir, the desirability of divorce as such, or even the validity of divorce as such. I do not think that enters into the argument. I know that there are those who are totally and completely opposed to the whole principle of divorce. That is their right and that is their privilege. In certain cases they are prevented from condoning divorce because of religious convictions; and there is no one in the house who would not respect that particular course.
Then, sir, there are those who think that the grounds of divorce should be broadened. Constantly we see arguments to the effect that adultery should not be the only cause of divorce. There are even those who go so far as to say-and we number among them our American friends-that even incompatibility should be a cause for divorce.
As I said, I am not taking any position on that particular matter tonight. I .am taking a position with respect to this particular bill, and in respect of divorces which come to this House of Commons from the province of Quebec and the province of Newfoundland-and rightly so, under present arrangements, because up to the present time Quebec and Newfoundland have decided to have no divorce courts of their own.
May I reiterate once again that that is their privilege and their right. On the other hand the people from Quebec and Newfoundland are obtaining divorces, and they are obtaining those divorces through the facilities of this parliament. It is my contention that the facilities of parliament should not be employed for that purpose. I do not know the history of the time after confederation when these divorces were allowed to come to the house. But, sir, in those days they treated the matter with somewhat more seriousness than we do at the present time. The


other day I was digging among some old records-not in connection with this matter, but simply for my own amusement and instruction-which dealt with the earliest divorce cases following 1867. I wish I had that file on my desk this evening, because I noted in particular one case concerning one by the name of Martin, I believe it was, and I noted further that the case was before one of the houses at least in 1870 and that a decision had not been reached by 1873.
Let me say that if we considered in like manner the divorce cases now on the order paper, to say nothing of the hundreds which may follow, and if we spent three years on each one of them, then we might properly be accused of conducting something in the nature of a filibuster in the matter of divorce.
My point is that, as a member of parliament, I was not sent here to Ottawa by the people I represent to foe a divorce court judge in a divorce mill-into which this House of Commons has degenerated during the last few years.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but I think he is now speaking too generally about divorce. His remarks would be more appropriate in the debate of another bill now on the order paper.
The bill before the house deals with one divorce only, and I suggest any remarks should be directed to the principle of that bill. I mention this at this time, in view of the number of divorce bills which will come before the house, so that hon. members may be under no misapprehension as to their speaking generally on the subject of divorce. I believe they would agree with me that such procedure would not be correct, and that they should discuss the principle of each bill.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate your judgment in the matter, I cannot see how one can do much else but generalize, when he has no particulars-for we have no particulars in respect of this bill. The evidence has not been presented to us, and it has not been distributed. I looked in my mail box before coming into the chamber, and I did not find it there.
All I know about this bill is the names of the people involved, the number of the bill, and the fact that one of the principals comes from Newfoundland. It is very difficult for me, therefore, to speak about any particulars in the case. If I erred on the side of generalization, that was the reason.
Therefore I feel incompetent to judge whether or not the people whose names are mentioned in Bill No. 10 should be given a divorce. I am just a member of parliament.

As such I have other things to do than give judgment on divorce cases. I do not think my constituents expect me to look after this sort of business nor, on the other hand, if we do look after it do they expect me to treat this whole matter carelessly and without due consideration. The passage of the bill would certainly mean the breaking up of a home. During the last session we tried to have the sponsor tell us the particulars. If in this instance the sponsor has anything he could tell me, or any particulars about which I could speak, and which would permit me to cease generalizing, I should be very pleased to have that information. Otherwise I shall have to wait until I get the evidence.
I am not a lawyer, and I do not think I am competent to decide tonight whether the two people mentioned in Bill No. 10 should or should not be divorced. One hon. member opposite refers to our talking about our conscience. Well, that is a pretty cheap and trite way of making fun of someone who is trying at least to do his duty.
Time after time these bills have been put through by the dozen and by the score, without having had any consideration. And, what is just as bad, the time of this house is taken up in the consideration of these bills when we should be considering something else. I can say sincerely that I have had it upon my conscience.
I cannot particularize any further, and if it is the decision of Mr. Speaker that I may not generalize, I shall have to close my remarks, as suggested by Mr. Speaker, and renew them when a certain private member's bill dealing with divorce is before the house.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I came into the house tonight just before the vote was taken on the adjournment, so that I did not hear the arguments leading up to the motion. However, I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) when he says that this evening we are called upon to do something that no parliament should be asked to do, namely to approve of the dissolution of a marriage, without having before us any evidence as to why we should do it.
We have seen no evidence. We have heard no evidence. Looking at this bill, I wonder why it is here because, as I read it-and I am not going to read the names-it is an act for the relief of a lady, S.D.R. We are told that whereas the lady, S.D.R., residing at the city of Toronto in the province of Ontario, clerk, wife of C.A.R., who is domiciled in .Canada and at present residing at the city of Syracuse, in the state of New York, one of the United States of America, has by her petition
Private Bills-Divorce alleged that they were married on the sixteenth day of February, A.D. 1945, at a village, the name of which is given here, in the province of Newfoundland-and then it gives her maiden name, and the fact that she was a spinster, and that she alleges that the marriage should be dissolved on account of the only ground upon which a marriage can be dissolved in Canada.
I cannot understand why this case is here at all. Apparently the lady is domiciled in Toronto. It is my understanding that in Ontario there are courts to which, under such circumstances, aggrieved persons may apply to have their petitions properly investigated in the only way, in my opinion, that divorce cases should be investigated, and that is by a competent court of jurisdiction, where all the evidence can be properly heard and weighed, and a decision reached.
Here tonight we have a case about which no one in the house knows anything. We have a bill sponsored by an hon. member who, of necessity, because of his position as chairman of a parliamentary committee, has to sponsor the bill. I am not blaming him. But the bills are placed on the order paper, and in our hands, without one jot or tittle of evidence to indicate why we should grant this particular petition.
First of all I wish to relieve the hon. member, or any other member, from the responsibility; but I say it is an imposition to have this bill before us tonight without one jot or tittle of evidence that would enable us to judge the worth of the petition, and to pass upon it.
I cannot understand hon. gentlemen in the house proceeding to discuss the bill without knowing something about it. We are giving credence to the very thing that has been said of this parliament, that because of circumstances we are turning this House of Commons into a divorce mill. If ever there was a piece of evidence which would give credence to that idea, it is this bill before us tonight.
There is not one jot or tittle of evidence before us. The bill simply states that one party is domiciled in the city of Toronto, in the province of Ontario and is earning her living. The other known fact that we have before us is that the man in the case is domiciled in the city of Syracuse, state of New York, United States of America.
I am opposed to this bill, not because of the principle of divorce involved in it, although I might have some reservations regarding that matter, but because I do not think that this house is justified under any
786	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce
circumstances in passing upon this bill before every hon. member has had an opportunity of seeing the evidence.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) tells me that the evidence in typed transcript form is in the possession of one of the officials of this house, but that is one copy only. I venture to say that not a single member sitting on the floor of this house, and this would include the sponsor of the bill-


An hon. Member:: Ask him.


Major James William Coldwell: -has had an opportunity to review the evidence. Perhaps the sponsor has, but if so then he is the only person in this house who has the moral right to cast a vote on this bill if he is satisfied that the petition is thoroughly justified.
I do not think we should be asked to pass upon a serious matter of this description without knowing exactly what we are doing. When the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) said that we were being called upon to break up a home that we knew nothing about, an hon. gentleman interjected to say that the home had already been broken up. That may be so, the home may have been broken up by one of the parties, but we should be satisfied that the home has been broken up so that the divorce may be granted legally and properly. I submit that that cannot be done until we have evidence to prove to us that we are justified in dealing with this matter and in voting upon it at the present time.
I am not going to go into the problem created by divorce because, as Mr. Speaker has indicated, there is a bill on the order paper which will enable us to discuss that matter properly and at length. Here we have an example of a petition in the form of a bill which is placed before us with not one jot or tittle of evidence. I say that no judge and no jury would come to a decision without hearing or seeing some evidence. It may be said that this matter has been before the Senate committee, but last year we worked it out that in most cases a relatively few minutes only could be given to each petition.
I doubt whether either of the persons involved in this bill appeared before the committee of the other place. I do not know whether the petitioner did, and we should see the evidence so that we would know. Was this case contested by the defendant? Did he come up from Syracuse to defend the case? Is this another of those cases where detectives were employed? Are we sure that we are not once again faced with collusion? There was no doubt about some of the cases that came before us last year and it was quite


evident that the evidence was false at times. How do we know that the evidence in this case is not as false as some of the evidence that came before us last year?
We know none of these things. I say to hon. members, for whom I have respect, that I do not think any of us dare put this bill through tonight without being satisfied that he is justified in doing so, without -being satisfied that the evidence is true, without being satisfied that there has been no collusion.
We took a new oath of allegiance the other day to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. When we took that oath, what did we promise to do? We promised that we would faithfully perform our duties as members of this house. I say that one of the duties that we owe, not just to this couple here but to the people of Canada and to those who sent us here, is that before casting a vote on a bill of any sort, let alone a bill which destroys a home of two persons, one of whom is domiciled in Canada, we should be perfectly satisfied that in all conscience we can do this without any reservation whatever.
I am asking that, before I am called upon to cast a vote on this divorce bill, the evidence shall be placed before me so that I may have an opportunity of reviewing it. If I do not perform my duty-


An hon. Member:: What about your oath?


Major James William Coldwell: I was just going on to say that if I did not read the evidence, and voted, nevertheless, I would not be true to the oath which I took a short time ago. That would be a matter for my own conscience. But having this bill before us we should not vote upon it without seeing the evidence, without knowing everything about it. If we do so we are not fulfilling our functions as members of parliament nor are we carrying out the oath which we took such a short time ago.
I think this example is an indication of the correctness of the stand that we have taken on this whole matter of divorce. Divorce should not be a matter for final decision by the members of this house. It should be a matter for a properly constituted court of law. I have every confidence that no judge in any of our courts would grant a divorce based on a petition of this description simply setting out where these two persons live.


Mr. Croll:: I think my hon. friend wants to be fair, but he says that no judge would grant a divorce on the evidence before him. He is not being asked tonight to grant a divorce on that evidence. There will be an

opportunity in committee when all the evidence will be presented. Then this bill will go before the private bills committee and come back here again. There will be three occasions to see the evidence.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman is incorrect. If we vote for this bill tonight we are voting for the principle of the bill which is the divorce of these two persons.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Which the sponsor said was so.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend knows that when we vote on the principle of a bill we give tacit approval to the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: The hour for public and private bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the business being considered at six o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Wright.
Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Mr. Speaker, in a little more than thirty-five years Canada has been called upon to participate in two world wars for which she was in no way responsible. At the present time we are deeply committed to NATO and defence of Europe which implies in the case of conflict that we would again pay tribute in the form of blood and suffering and resources on the part of our people.
As I said this afternoon, we should endeavour to get our friends the United States and the different countries in Europe to try to work together harmoniously. It is true that it is absolutely impossible to have no differences of any kind or no diverse opinions, but it should be possible in the present serious situation to try to get these countries to maintain in full their integrity and fine friendship, so that united actions will prevail. I spoke this afternoon of my great admiration for our cousins to the south of us, the great republic of the United States. In some quarters she has been accused of militarism, but this is an accusation that could not stand investigation. Has anyone ever seen in military history a nation who, after having vanquished her foes-some of them have been very wicked and have hurt the United States in her national pride-has offered aid through the Marshall plan? This aid was offered to every nation in Europe, but it is true that some of them could not accept its benefits because they were behind the iron curtain and had to listen to the voice and orders of Moscow.
External Affairs
In a few days this house will be called upon to deal with the Japanese peace treaty. Most of us have read that document now. Anyone who has read history must admit that he has never seen a treaty of the kind which the United States is offering to Japan. The United States was hurt deeply, yes, almost fatally, by Pearl Harbor, yet she is offering to the world one of the finest treaties ever given a nation to sign. This treaty includes some of the highest Christian principles, and I want to pay tribute to Mr. Dulles, the great American statesman who is the founder of that document.
The shift in world power was not desired by the United States. It has been, to some extent, imposed upon her. Her tremendous program for peace is an illustration of her sincere desire to maintain peace in the world. It is illustrated by her steady increase of the American forces in Europe, with no top limit fixed; a program of military aid to America's allies which this summer will far surpass the amount of Marshall aid which it may replace; two and a quarter years of universal military service on top of the present draft; a military three-year budget of $140 billion from July 1950 to June 1953, by which year her industrial remobilization will be complete; indefinite maintenance of the state of military preparedness thus attained.
These facts do not show any desire for domination. For nearly a century her actions have proved that she wanted to keep to herself. She wanted to be kept separate from anything that might happen in Europe, and the Monroe doctrine proves that. It is true that she was able to follow her destiny at peace because she had a wonderful shield in the British navy. At the same time, it was in her heart and in her soul to remain an American nation, working out its own destiny and not to be inveigled with what might happen in Europe.
If you do not want to believe my words about this, I shall quote the words of a very prominent newspaperman, Mr. Sebastian Haffner, as they appear in the London Observer. He said:
The rise of American power to overwhelming supremacy is bound to increase the importance of the United Nations, for the simple reason that America believes in the United Nations and bases her foreign policy on this.
America does not want to dominate the world; she does want the United Nations to dominate the world. She does want to see the charter respected and obeyed as world law, all nations acting in its spirit, and trespassers punished and forced back. This is what President Truman meant by the second part of his recent statement, when he defined the basic aims of American foreign policy in these words: "To see that the people in the

External Affairs
world have the things that are necessary to make life worth while, and that they live by the moral code in which we believe."
This may be idealism, and idealism as such may be a weak force in international politics. But idealism backed by overwhelming power must be taken seriously. The charter may well become the . Magna Charta of the second-class powers and the small nations in a world where, for the first time in history, there will be one nation stronger than all the rest together.
Now, that brings me to the question of Europe, and I want to discuss the question of the equilibrium of Europe and the equilibrium of the world. At the beginning of the twentieth century Europe could settle not only her own problems, but the moment that European problems were settled by the European nations they were not spread over the rest of the world. After world war I, I believe it was in 1920, the prime minister of France, Mr. Briand, said this:
If we have another war in Europe as serious and as grievous as the one we have had from 1914 to 1919, then Europe will become a world problem. Europe will not be able to localize these wars, they will spread as another world war and every nation may be involved. It may mean the end of European leadership.
That is the situation that is facing us. Today, we hope, we wish and we pray that the European powers will find it possible to comprehend one another as well as to comprehend the United States. Europe is facing two colossi, two great big nations, and the future of Europe might be decided on the knees of these colossi. It is very important for Europe to realize the seriousness of the situation. Let us never get away from the fact that if it is true to speak of the iron curtain in Europe, it applies just as forcibly to Americans, although geographically speaking they are located thousands of miles from Europe. On that score, then, it makes Americans, Canadians and Britishers and all the nations of the world realize that we are all in the same boat. Really, where danger exists for one of these nations, it exists for all of them. We must stand together, individually and collectively, or else we shall not be able to survive.
I should like to say one word about Great Britain. Sometimes she is criticized. I heard just one of the hon. members opposite say that Great Britain was bankrupt. I hope that this is not true. That cannot be true. Great Britain always had wonderful recuperative powers. It ill behooves any civilized nation to say that Great Britain will become bankrupt. For over a year during the last war she was the only human rampart against the hordes of barbarism. She paid a price in blood, in suffering and in devastation, greater than any nation has suffered in the world's

history. Great Britain is needed, just as the United States is needed. She has been a wonderful friend and a wonderful ally.
At the present time, I do not believe I could do better than to read-I do not like to read these excerpts, and I seldom do it. I believe this excerpt is worth while because, even in the United States, there is some inclination to make unfavourable criticism of Great Britain. I was deeply grieved when, prior to the visit of that great statesman, Winston Churchill, some newspapers in the United States and some congressmen were saying that Mr. Churchill was coming, hat in hand, so to speak, to beg for Great Britain. Mr. Churchill did not need to beg and he did not beg, while on this side of the Atlantic. Before the nations of the world, Great Britain is on our side. What are the assets Great Britain can bring to our cause? I quote from an article in the Christian Science Monitor of January 23, 1951:
Geographically, Britain is the sentinel, the advanced post, of the European continent. As a naval and air base she was vital in the second world war and would appear more so in an atomic war. She has national service of two years for British youth, and Britons are good soldiers . . .
The British empire, for all its reduced power, has a valuable string of naval bases around the world . . .
I am not going to read the whole of this editorial because these bases are known to all of us but the article concludes in this way:
The Briton as a human being has always been a sturdy, reliable friend and a tough foe. His courage and bulldog qualities have been shown innumerable times in history and never to better advantage than in that "finest hour" to which Winston Churchill gave expression and leadership. Such people are good to have as allies and much to be dreaded as enemies.
I want to make the same appeal as the member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) did in his speech the other day. I hope it will be possible for men in public life in Great Britain and the United States to stop this filibustering against each other. Those things are not in order at the present time and could do a lot of harm.
I just want to say a few words about my old motherland. It was stated this afternoon that France is on the downgrade. I do not believe it. France, that generous nation, throughout all her history has shed her blood profusely for ideals and for principles, principles that are now practised in every section of the world. Many times she stood between tyranny and liberty. France may have her troubles today, but she will surmount those troubles as she always did. In considering France, we must remember what happened to her after world war I. Although she had guarantees from Great Britain-I believe this is the time to speak the truth-and from the

United States, she was left absolutely alone following world war I. She was invaded for the third time in eighty years, and at what cost? It will take me only a few minutes to tell you what it cost France in lives and in material losses.
Three times in less than one hundred years France was the first victim of barbaric attacks against the occidental civilization, under Bismarck, under the Kaiser and under Hitler. In 1870-71 France lost 156,000 dead, 500,000 wounded. We must remember those figures. In 1914-18 the war cost France almost a whole generation. She lost 1,427,000 dead on the battlefield, 700,000 invalidated, 2,344,000 wounded; 1 million houses were destroyed,
30,000	miles of road and 2,700,000 acres of forest and arable land were devastated. France has been hurt in her pride and is not in bankruptcy at all. France has her soul and her power yet. You have only to remember Verdun. Verdun is an episode that will show what she can do when she is fighting for her life. No greater heroism was ever shown than that shown by France on that occasion. What happened to France between 1939 and 1945? France lost 250,000 men killed in combat; 400,000 were wounded; 1,500,000 were made prisoners and 120,000 civilians were killed; 1 million children were killed or died from hunger and cold; and 250,000 men and women disappeared in concentration camps, in addition to the terrific material losses. Even though there is criticism of the policy of France, I feel that I am not making an appeal to deaf ears when I plead for her and say that France will show heroism in the future in surmounting her difficulties as she has always done in the past, when the honour of democracy was in danger, and the same call will be answered with valour and heroism.
We have great factors in Europe at the present time that are also satisfying to some extent. It is the great leadership given by its statesmen. I want to say one word about Germany. It is true that for centuries there were horrible wars between that nation and France, with no profit to those two great and fine nations. They both possess some wonderful qualities. If united they could bring marvellous factors and advancements in the whole civilization of Europe. The same thing applies forcibly because we have what we call a permanent union between England and France. Luckily for Europe and luckily for the civilized world ever since the bonne entente those two fine nations have been united together for many years and on two occasions it was possible for them to help save civilization. In Germany the time must have arrived for that dynamic nation which as
External Affairs
a people has wonderful qualities not only in the arts, and in music, but in construction, in engineering, in medicine. Surely they must realize that the time has now come that they must forget about their martial spirit and must now work hand in hand with the rest of the civilized world in saving civilization; to do otherwise would simply be suicidal.
Speaking of western Germany one cannot help mentioning the name of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer whose courage, statesmanship and vision have designated him as a pillar of Europe; and in being asked to sum up his hopes and misgivings as to progress in the negotiations on the Schuman plan and the European army, this is his answer and I quote:
These projects are not simple ends in themselves. They are also means to the positive end of a new. unified Europe from which fear, ambition and jealousy will have been banished. The goal of a European family, which will be the trustee and guardian of our common Christian civilization, is now within reach. We cannot afford to let slip the present opportunity of obtaining it for we may not get another opportunity like it.
On being asked if he thought the leaders of the other countries taking part in the deliberations see the matter in the same clear light, he replied without hesitation:
I know that they share the same view to a greater or lesser degree. There are points of differences and frictions; but they are largely technical. With a little patience and a spirit of compromise we shall have complete agreement.
I have been questioned several times about the feeling of other Germans. Outsiders seem to doubt, sometimes, whether our people are ready to honour the far-reaching arrangements that are being worked out in their name. I am often asked if they really believe in the European idea. I want to give an assurance that most of them can, and do, and will.
We recognized the statesmanship that Mr. Adenauer has given to western Germany just as Mr. de Gasperi, the premier of Italy, has given leadership to his country. These are all potentials which, if properly utilized, by trying to comprehend the mentality of these men and the difficulties they have to surmount and helping them as strongly as possible will lead to a united Europe.
Before I resume my seat, I want to speak briefly on a delicate but urgent subject. I want to praise the government, parliament and the Canadian people for having established some connection with Spain which I hope will be enlarged. Here in the house we sometimes hear people being called fascists, nazis and so on. Under the present circumstances, sometimes it might be well to forget some of the labels that might be thrown unjustly at some nations and at some people. As far as I am concerned, I am just as anti-communist as is any Canadian. But at the same time I know and we all

External Affairs
know the situation in Yugoslavia. While I know that communism is rampant, I would not criticize the help we are at present giving Yugoslavia because we believe-and
I	believe that we are right in that belief- that, being a friendly nation, we should not want to see her bow her head to Kussian imperialism although she maintains to a large extent a degree of communism. At the same time I believe we are warranted in being friendly with Yugoslavia, as she may also learn and eventually adopt our principles. On the other hand, why should we not be friendly with Spain? There is a tremendous military potential there. At the insurrection Moroccan troops fought for the liberation of communism in Spain. Let us not be scandalized about this factor. In world war I and world war II we had troops from North Africa and we had troops from Asia fighting to protect our civilization. No matter what we may think of Spain it is certain that the Spanish administration of that section of the North African continent proved that what they have done has been favourable to that population and they were glad to fight for the national integrity of Spain. No one will make me believe for one moment that any nation will fight more strenuously against communism than will Spain. There is a good reason for that, one that cost Spain a tremendous amount of blood and suffering. Let us remember what happened at the time of the insurrection about nineteen years ago. What was the alternative of Spain? If Spain had followed the line she was following then she would have fallen, like a ripe fruit, into the hands of communism led by Moscow; and the moment that communism became rampant in Spain, it could easily and rapidly have spread into every section of Europe.
I never discuss religious problems for the sake of discussion, but I remember speaking in the town of Timmins a few years ago-I believe that it was in 1941-during world war
II	at a meeting of protest held by my fine Jewish people with regard to the horrible holocaust that these people had suffered in Germany. I spoke at that meeting at which I was invited to be present; and this is what I told them. I said that as a Christian and a Catholic, when I hear there is persecution that happens in any section of the world-whether it is against the Jewish people or any other race or nationality, or against the Protestant or the Catholic faith-then I know that if persecution is unchecked it is bound to spread like a virus, a violent epidemic, and that there is something going wrong; and I am duty bound to protest because the primary tenet of your

faith, of my faith and of all faiths, is charity. The moment that persecution of religion is rampant, charity no longer exists.
What happened in Spain during the insurrection? Only a short fifteen years ago the church in Spain, one of the most glorious churches in Christianity, suffered tremendously in the way of lives lost. What happened there? Twelve bishops were killed; 12,000 priests and a number of the religious orders were massacred and 20,000 churches were devastated or burned.
Can anyone dare to say that Spain had to suffer those things unless it was done at the instance of the diabolical mind of communistic Russia? What harm were those churches doing to the Spanish nation or to any part of Spain or to anyone else in fact? What harm were those bishops doing to the Spanish nation or to the whole world? What harm were those priests doing or those members of those religious orders-some little sisters of the poor, some Christian brothers teaching the little children; some nuns looking after the old, the sick, the infirm. What harm were they doing or what politics were they playing? I will always remember vividly reading an article in the New York Times at the time of the insurrection. The correspondent there said that no one could make him believe that those holocausts were necessary; he said that no one could make him believe that it was necessary to destroy the Catholic churches in Spain. Why the killing of persons who were doing good work in the name of God? That is why I am speaking on that subject.
Again I repeat what I have said previously. Why the killing of persons who were doing good work in the name of God? Two years ago, when I saw that in Roumania the Protestant churches were being persecuted there, I took it upon myself to write personally in the best way possible to some agencies in the United States, hoping that my letter would reach Roumania, and to protest against that situation. One persecution always leads to another. Let us not get away from this fact. It is a virus, a pestilence that spreads itself in no time until everybody is affected and everybody will eventually suffer. I am just mentioning these facts because I hope and I pray that the authorities, whoever they happen to be, will personally make a special appeal to France at the present time to try to be more friendly towards Spain, towards its government and towards the Spanish people, because we need them at the present time. If you do not wish to take my words, you

may take those of somebody who is not of my faith and not of my nationality, someone who is not a Canadian, but an American. I will read to you an excerpt from an article written in the Reader's Digest of November, 1950, by William Hard and Andre Visson. This is what they have to say about manpower. I believe this is practical advice that they are giving to every one of us, because the sons of the Canadian mothers and Canadian fathers who are now in Korea and their sons and daughters who are in Germany at the present time may be called upon to engage in another holocaust, a ring of death on the European continent. Therefore they have the right to expect that cur government, all our friendly governments, the governments of democracies, will see to it that every factor is taken into consideration which will give us the best defence and strength possible against communism. I am going to quote the words of these two named gentlemen. They are Americans.
Similar remarks can be made in relation to Spain. Spain has an army of 400,000 men, organized into 18 divisions. These divisions need better weapons. But it would cost only one-third as much to ready these 18 Spanish divisions for war as it would cost to create 18 new British or French divisions.
The Spanish troops are violently anticommunist.
These are their words. I continue:
They would be utterly reliable on the German front against Russia. Why not ask Franco to put six divisions of them there? He would have a strong reason for doing so. If the Russians conquer western Europe, his life will not be worth many pesetas.
We all know that the communists do not like Franco, and to me it is an honour for Franco to be disliked by Moscow. He certainly must have done something against communism to be disliked', and he has never been liked since the Spanish civil war, because he stopped them short in Spain. The article goes on:
The argument against letting Franco help to thwart the Russians has been that Franco is a dictator. So is Stalin.
We worked with Stalin, and rightly so, during world war II. I do not criticize that because it was good policy at that time, as we thought that he would amend his ways.


Mr. Gagnon:: He was our ally at that time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The article goes on:
What is the matter with letting one dictator fight another dictator, if thereby he is promoting the ultimate triumph of democracies? The curbing of Stalin is more important that the ostracising of Franco.
Among some of the western allies there is a vigorous aversion to accepting troops from Franco.
External Affairs
Why is there an aversion? Somebody said: "Hear, hear". Who said "hear, hear"? I would like to have his name so it would be on the record. Why should1 there be "hear, hear" against Franco because he tried to save his own nation from devastation, from anarchy, from death, and who should be criticizing him on that score? May I put this question to you parliamentarians? What was the alternative during the insurrection? To let the communists run rampant in the peninsula so that eventually they would overrun the whole of Europe, or to allow Franco, who was and is a true Spaniard, to revive and to recuperate that nation from the hand of communism and from the hands of Moscow? I continue with the article:
The American reply might well be:
Very well, if you will not take six divisions from Franco to help save Europe from a totalitarianism infinitely worse than Franco's, why, then, you will surely not expect Americans to fill the gap thus caused. You will surely then raise six new additional divisions from among yourselves.
That is all I want to say on this matter. I thank the house for its kind attention. I know you realize that what I have said to you I have given in all sincerity, because I do not believe myself in persecution of any kind. I believe in the free play of all the people, in the true respect of all they profess and cherish no matter who they are, and I know you believe me when I make this appeal to you. When I hear of persecution of any race, of any religion, pagan or otherwise, then I know that in those nations something is absolutely wrong which should not be tolerated, and that we should see that it does not go on permanently, or else it will spread like wildfire.
Before resuming my seat I just want to bring a personal touch to what I have said. A few days ago I had the great honour of being re-appointed as a member of the standing committee on external affairs. I appreciate that honour, which carries with it some very heavy responsibilities, but they are pleasant ones to perform because of the fine co-operation and support that I have received from every member of that committee, no matter to which party they belonged.
I say to the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) that I hope he will find it possible again, as in previous years, ever since the inception of the committee on external affairs, to act as our vice-chairman.


Mr. Graydon:: It is easy to work with you.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Thank you very much. He knows how much all the members of our committee and myself appreciate that. I

External Affairs
want to pay that compliment to every member of our committee for the fine work they have accomplished. There have been differences, but I am absolutely in favour of full discussion on any subject. This is the time and the place, and this is the machinery for that purpose. They have done it in the past and I know they will do it in the future. In the spirit of that co-operation it was possible to have, to a very large extent-I was going to say to the full extent-harmony so far as external affairs are concerned, and that has redounded to the honour of our country, our parliament and to the maintenance of peace throughout the world.
(Translation):


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Mr. Speaker, in his statement on the international situation last Friday, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred mainly to war and to preparations for war. The efforts of those whose duty it is to fashion our foreign policy therefore seem to have been diverted from the ultimate aim so eagerly desired by our people, namely the establishment of a sound and lasting peace, and to have been definitely directed towards armaments.
War is not unavoidable. But it is possible, and even probable, when nations rely more on might than on diplomacy to settle their present differences.
General MacArthur said recently at Jackson, Missouri:
(Text):
The United States administration is preparing us for a war in Europe after plunging the country unprepared into the Korean conflict.
(Translation):
Generals and military chiefs are worthy of our attention, because we call upon them to correct the blunders and the failures of the diplomats.
I do not question for one moment the ability or the devotion to duty of the present holder of the portfolio of external affairs. I even have confidence in those who assist him but I deeply regret the fact that our rulers, under the pressure of countries having special interests, have permitted themselves to be led into certain paths which can only lead to disasters even more terrible than those we have already suffered. Peace is a blessing from Heaven; we must be deserving of it, earn it through our sacrifices, our prayers and above all through observance of and regard for the divine teachings.
If the leaders of the nations of the world, in their meetings and their councils, would

give to God His rightful place; if, instead of sowing the seeds of discord, hatred and revenge through their speeches and the news papers in their pay, they 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.


Jean Lesage: We would first have to convince the Russians to do so.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I think that my good friend, the member for Montmagny-LTsIet (Mr. Lesage), did his share in that connection.


Jean Lesage: It is the hon. member's turn
now.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Peace cannot be ensured unless God reigns supreme in the universal order He has established and within the states...
. . . stated the Pope in his Christmas message of 1951.
Insecurity and terror are haunting the minds today. Where are the leaders who had promised to free us from this nightmare?
Where are the signatories of the Atlantic charter who had sworn to respect the right of all peoples to choose the political system under which they wanted to live? Where are the promoters of disarmament and cooperation?
Following the last conflict, a new world was to be created, putting aside God, His light and His precepts. He was banned from the United Nations. We are now faced with the results.
Where are we going to? The minister himself recognizes that it would be foolhardy to take an uncompromising attitude in such a changing world as ours.
We are carried on the turmoiled waters of communism, of unbelief and atheism. Stalin is at the helm and we are the sailors. 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 oil enterprises or their munitions plants. We are fostering internationalism at the expense of patriotism. Meanwhile, Canadians shed their blood on the battlefields of Asia and mothers await in anxiety and grief the end of this useless massacre.
Why, I ask, are our troops not being brought back from Korea? What are we waiting for? Why do we not take our soldiers out of that hell? Are we waiting for complete extermination or the end of negotiations leading nowhere?

Time magazine, on March 17,	1952,
described the situation as follows under the heading "Purgatory":
(Text):
The dilly-dallying in the truce tents continued like drops of water in the old Chinese torture. It was eight months since the U.N. and communist negotiators had sat down to turn the war that is not a war into a peace that is not a peace.
On the U.N. side of the battle line, 450 thousand men-much of the cream of the U.S. military manpower-burrowed dismally into the Korean snow and mud, to wait for they knew not what. On the other side, 900 thousand of the enemy did the same. Occasionally, on either side, a man died-a bullet in the brain, a mutilating date with a mortar shell, a ride to earth in a jet-propelled funeral pyre. But the dying settled nothing.
In the truce tents at Panmunjom, nothing was settled either. A dismal pall of petty complexities had settled over a mission that once seemed pressing and simple. Daily, the truce delegates marched into their stove-warmed tents for the usual round of long, surly wrangles or ridiculous little meetings of a few minutes (one last week lasted only 120 seconds) at which neither side would speak.
(Translation):
The communists lead the dance. The negotiators journey back and forth. Lieutenant-General Matthew B. Ridgway, commander of the 8th American Army, said, as early as April, 1951:
(Text):
There is no end of the Korean war in sight unless a political settlement is reached elsewhere.
(Translation):
Following this observation the Ottawa Journal published, on the 10th of the same month, an editorial entitled:
(Text):
Now That MacArthur Is Silenced
It reads:
If General Kidgway be right-and red communist leaders have said that their objective is to drive us out of Korea-and we are unable to negotiate peace, or are unable to negotiate peace without appeasement or surrender, then what?
Some in authority tell us that our aim in Korea should be to "localize the fighting." But if it should happen, failing negotiation of the sort of peace we should want, that red China, determined to drive us from Korea, continues to mass against us overwhelming manpower, how long can "localized fighting" go on? Men cannot be expected to go on dying indefinitely just to "localize fighting." Our military position in Korea seems tragically unrealistic; bedevilled by confusion. We tell ourselves that we will not "reward aggression" (words of Mr. Truman and Mr. Attlee) that we will not make a peace of surrender. At the same time, and while the enemy is saying that we must either make a peace of surrender (he has scorned all other forms of peace offers) or quit Korea and continues to mass forces against us, we keep saying that we must not do anything in Korea that might induce this enemy to make "all-out" war on us; that we must not go beyond a certain line in Korea, and that we must not bomb the base and source of his attacks upon us.
All we must do is to see-saw up and down the South Korean peninsula in a war of attrition, using
External Affairs
such troops only as can be "safely thrown into the battle" and not even hoping (if we are to believe General Bidgway) for victory.
(Translation):
How far away we have drifted from the optimism and the enthusiasm displayed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who declared at the plenary session of the general assembly of the United Nations, on September 27, 1950.
Events-and United States and British soldiers- are rapidly demonstrating in Korea that aggression does not pay. It will soon be necessary for the United Nations to show, with equal vigour and resourcefulness, that it can deal with the problems of the post-aggression period in Korea. The political and economic life of that country must be established on a basis which will enable the Korean to fulfil the destiny that has been promised them. As hostilities draw to a close in Korea, and the assembly takes up its new responsibilities there, it seems to our delegation that certain specific principles should govern its decisions and that we should embody these principles at once in an assembly resolution.
In the first place, the general objective as we see it of the United Nations in Korea should be to fulfil the purposes which have been repeatedly stated at previous assemblies-a united Korea, a free Korea, a Korea which the Korean people themselves govern without interference from outside. This should be achieved by United Nations action and not through decisions reached by certain of its members.
There is no doubt about it, Canada has been in too much of a hurry to send its sons to Korea.
Of all the countries requested to assist the United States by far the greater number thought it better to stand aloof or to help out in a manner far more symbolic than effective.
For our part, says the Montreal St. John the Baptist society, we consider unusual, dangerous and provocative the zeal shown thus far by our leaders in Ottawa, who are once again resorting to the devices which have thrown us into two world wars. It is not up to Canada to take the initiative in forming an international army.
Faithful to its ideology, to its unshakeable tradition, our society is anxious to raise its protest above the hubbub of propaganda. It urges the utmost circumspection in the present emergency and protests against the idea of making Canada the policeman of humanity.
I am against war, Mr. Speaker, and against those who are leading us to a new slaughter.
Due to the present state of scientific discoveries, war is a destructive undertaking on a huge scale. The moment that the idea of atomic warfare is accepted, the idea of bacteriological warfare must also be accepted for the latter is not more horrible than the former but simply easier to wage and more dreadfully efficient. No one could say what would remain of the human race after a war in which new weapons of destruction would be used from one continent to another.
And, last but not least, it is untrue that a country or a group of countries-even the

External Affairs
North Atlantic community-has at its disposal sufficient superior means to be able to face war under good conditions.
Mr. Pierre Cot, a former French minister and deputy, wrote the following:
The truth of the matter is that under present conditions, the United States and its allies have an economic strength superior to that of their potential enemies. This superiority is temporary, but it exists and is important. But, if economic strength is the necessary basis for military strength it does not follow however that the relation between the military forces of two states or two groups of states is exactly the same as the relation between their capacities for economic production. Other elements must be taken into consideration, particularly the geographical position. The geographical position of the United States and their western allies is so markedly unfavourable that even if they still hold a margin of superiority in the economic field, it is much less sure that the situation is the same from the military point of view.


Jean Lesage: Are you speaking or is it Mr. Pierre Cot?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: It is Mr. Cot.
The present experience of the United States in Korea . . .
I want the hon. member for Montmagny-L'lslet to listen to this:
The present experience of the United States in Korea, where in spite of the enormous superiority of their economic facilities they cannot impose their will and are compelled to mark time and to negotiate, should open their eyes.
And should also open the eyes of the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet.


Jean Lesage: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: You may do so when I am through.


Jean Lesage: I would like to know if the hon. member is conversant with the philosophy and political doctrine of Mr. Pierre Cot.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet not to interrupt the member who has the floor. The hon. member for Montmagny-L'Islet knows perfectly well he may not interrupt a member who is speaking without his permission.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is also Mr. Wellington Koo.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: We fought from 1939 to 1945 in order to ensure the complete destruction of nazi tyranny. Those are the very words of Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill.
We imposed on Germany an unconditional peace; we forced her to shut down her ammunition plants, while, after sham trials, our judges were passing death sentences on the nazi leaders; today, humbling ourselves at Germany's knees, we beseech her to rearm and we are willing to spend hundreds of millions in order to help her do so. I say that it would be the same thing all over again, should we one day defeat Russia.

In the meantime, the utmost is being done to spread everywhere a war psychosis.
On March 10, 1952, the Time magazine published an article entitled "Giant Strides". I quote from the article the following excerpt:
(Text):
A month after the Korean war began, General Eisenhower said: "You can't win anywhere if you don't win this one."
It is now apparent (see War in Asia) that the U.S. is not going to win the Korean war. Washington has not the will to win it. During eight months of truce negotiations, U.S. forces have grown weaker, the enemy stronger. There is no will to achieve anything more than a stalemate.
All Asia will note as a great new fact that the U.S. was unable to cope with the Chinese reds.
Europe, despite years of effort and the expenditure of billions of U.S. dollars, is still not defensible. France, drained by Indo-China, is in grave economic crisis. West Germany is still unarmed, still unable to defend itself against a Russian advance that might make a communist military spearhead out of German men and industry.
This is the background against which Secretary Acheson last week reported "giant strides" of progress at the Lisbon NATO conference. Such progress reports are familiar milestones of the last five years. They are true, in a way. The free world does move, but the question is whether that movement amounts to anything when measured by (1) the cost of the U.S. effort and (2) the progress of the enemy. Thus measured, the U.S. is taking "giant strides" north on a train that is moving south.
(Translation):
Canada, a powder monkey in the American galley, sails in the same direction.
The Prime Minister said in this house, on September 13, 1950:
But our present view is . . . that the most effective immediate contribution Canada can make to the joint strength in Europe of the North Atlantic nations, is the provision of arms and equipment, which will enable the young men of the nations of western Europe to have effective means of providing security for their own homelands, and of building up their combined strength as a deterrent to aggression from any quarter.
Why did we not stick to this wise and level-headed policy? What apparent or hidden powers have driven us to intensify our military effort?
On the other hand, I say that in leaving Spain out of the Atlantic community that now includes Greece and Turkey-countries that are in no way Atlantic nations-we made a political error which may be a fatal one.
May I now bring forward the testimony of Mr. Douglas Jerrold, a distinguished English historian, who said some time ago to the members of the Toronto Empire Club:
(Text):
Discussing the international cold-shouldering of Spain, Jerrold said its omission from the Atlantic pact was a grave error. The mistake was "strategic", because its geographical position gives it control of the Mediterranean, and any hostile power in Spain would dominate large parts of North Africa: tactical, because Spain represents the only really

valuable reserve of manpower; and political, because it imparts an unsound principle of doctrinaire political discrimination which, if persisted in, must prevent any effective European unity.
And later on:
We cannot possibly defend Europe unless all the nations are united. As long as different nations feel they will be subject to a political censorship, there can be no unity and this parts a fatal condition of division.
(Translation):
Canada was one of the 16 countries that abstained from voting at |Lake Success upon the repeal of the motion passed in 1946 against Spain.
It is unbelievable that such a country as ours should take such an attitude. The Secretary of State for External Affairs should try to convince his colleagues of the Atlantic treaty countries that friendly relations with Spain are a must.
It is fitting to quote Franco's opinion on democracy, as he expressed it to an Italian newspaperman in 1950:
(Text) :
If it is a matter of modus vivendi between peoples, then no friendship or sincere understanding is possible without tolerance and mutual respect. Not all countries stand at the same level of material and intellectual development, nor are the characters and idiosyncracies of all peoples alike, nor their faith, history, or traditions. The attempt to unify the world on the basis of what one people considers most perfect is the most intolerable of imperialisms, imperialism over conscience. If a system is good or perfect in itself, it thereby contains enough power of attraction to make others copy it. To claim to know, from a distance of thousands of miles, what is best for other peoples, is absurd. There is a Latin proverb which says: "The madman in his own house knows more than the sane one in somebody else's."
This is still Mr. Franco speaking.
The American people are an over-simple people and one that is readily deceived. They accepted the fact that Stalin was next door to a saint; he was the great ally, we might call him America's boy friend.
Many hon. members said the same thing.
But today it suits political ends to represent Tito as a real value, in view of his apparent repudiation by Russia. Spain's great sin has lain in not being willing to hate Germany or Italy and in having kept herself outside the general hatred for five years. Now today Italy and Germany are helped and Spain is ill-treated. This is something no level-headed person can understand. No political arrangements of international character are possible upon a principle of inequality, of victors and vanquished, of founder-members, full members and outcasts.
(Translation):
We must not wait until it is too late. The government's duty is to foresee, especially in the field of external affairs.
When the Athenians were threatened by Philip of Macedon, Demosthenes said to them: "Athenians, we must not be led by events, we must prevent them." As a gen-
External Affairs
eral marches at the head of his troops so wise statesmen must march, if I may say so, at the head of events, so that they will not have to wait upon these to know how to act, but will act so as to bring about the events they desire.
Our leaders must, of necessity, work towards peace. It is ridiculous to believe that they will achieve that result by preparing for a new carnage.
To the warlike endeavours of the enemies of Christianity and liberty we must answer with a crusade of good will. To incendiary speeches we must give peaceful replies.
The fantastic amounts spent on weapons of war will not prevent the expansion of subversive doctrines throughout the world, but charity, when applied to the relationships of peoples all equal, all beloved and all protected by Providence, can work wonders.
Peace was promised to men of good will and not to warmongers and fomenters of international strife.


Jean Lesage: I would now like to ask the question I have tried to ask during the speech of the hon. member for Chicoutimi.


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Go ahead.


Jean Lesage: Is the member for Chicoutimi acquainted with the political affiliations and ideological views of Mr. Pierre Cot?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Certainly.


Jean Lesage: Does he know that that gentleman is a communist fellow traveller?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: I say he is not a communist, but I know his political affiliations.


Jean Lesage: Doesn't the member for Chicoutimi know, to be fair, that in 1950, at the fifth general assembly of the United Nations, Canada voted in favour of Spain becoming again a member of the specialized agencies?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: Canada abstained from voting when the repeal of the resolution passed in 1946 proposing the admission of Spain to the United	Nations council was
requested.


Jean Lesage: Doesn't the member know that, in 1950, on a similar vote, Canada voted for the repeal of that resolution?


Paul-Edmond Gagnon: On the 21st of May 1949 Canada abstained from voting when the repeal of a motion preventing Spain from being admitted to the United Nations council was requested. Fifteen countries voted against and sixteen abstained. Among the sixteen who abstained were Belgium, Burma, Canada, Chile, China, Denmark, Ethiopia, France, Haiti, Iran, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United States, etc.
7S6

External Affairs


Jean-François Pouliot: Peace on earth to men of good will.


Mr. Maurice Bourgel (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to reply immediately to the remarks just made by the hon. member from Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) but I shall have an opportunity, during my speech, to discuss certain facts he has stated.
The arguments brought forward during this discussion show how difficult it is for a government to follow a definite policy in view of the extremist views expressed on all sides. The Liberal party has once more chosen the best way to satisfy all these views when it decided on a middle-of-the-road policy, the policy followed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
I shall therefore have an opportunity to reply, during the course of my speech, to the arguments advanced by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi.
(Text):
Last fall I had the privilege of being a member of the Canadian delegation to the sixth general assembly of the United Nations in Paris. Therefore, I wish to immediately extend my personal thanks, and that of my electors, to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), as well as to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), for having given me the opportunity to attend these interesting sessions. The hon. senator for Nipissing, along with the hon. members for Kindersley (Mr. Larson), Grey North (Mr. Bennett), and Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) were also part of the delegation. I am pleased to add that we had a splendid trip, and that a real, happy family spirit prevailed throughout the two months we spent together.
1 believe it would be appropriate to remark in passing that the practice, adopted by the government, of sending members of parliament from different sections of the country as delegates to the United Nations is an excellent one. It enables these members to observe at first hand the work which is accomplished at the United Nations-work in which they play an active part-and, accordingly, when they return home they have the advantage of being able to inform their fellow citizens through lectures or open forums of the various questions discussed at the United Nations. I wish to congratulate the government on its initiative, and only hope that this custom may be continued so that many of the members of this house may also enjoy the same privilege. I would also like to mention the courtesy extended to all of us during our stay in Paris by the leader of our delegation, the minister of external

affairs; I am quite sure that I am expressing here the appreciation of all the members of the delegation.
And now a word with regard to the advisers and all the personnel who worked with us during this assembly. I am pleased to say that they were competent and conscientious, at all times showing their willingness to work, and assist, even though the hour was late; they are deserving of our most sincere congratulations. While on this subject, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the house an article which appeared in Time magazine under date of November 26, 1951; it reads as follows:
In the brief time that the Paris meetings have been on, the Canadians have built a reputation as one of the hardest working delegations in the city.
I am reading this not because I was a member of the delegation, but because it is of interest to hon. members and the people of Canada. Often when the government sends a delegation outside this country one hears it said, especially if the destination is Paris, that this is a kind of picnic. I know that none of the members of the house say these things, but one hears such reflections. The article written for this magazine shows clearly that all the members of the delegation, whether they be Progressive Conservative, C.C.F. or Social Credit, are doing their share of the work. I continue to quote from the article:
They are housed in the small, dignified Hotel Raphael, only five minutes away from the United Nations headquarters in the Palais de Chaillot. The hotel's sixth floor has been turned into offices, where a briefing session is held promptly at 9.30 each morning before the all day United Nations meetings begin. Homework keeps the Hotel Raphael lights burning late into the night. "Don't ask me about Paris night life," said a Canadian delegate. "What are those Montmartre nightclubs they talk about?"
I have just stated my reason for wanting to put this article on Hansard.
In the course of the few remarks that I wish to make, it is not my intention to speak on the most important political questions before the assembly, because, after two months' participation at this meeting, one will easily understand that a member does not become an expert on international affairs. Moreover, all of these matters have been discussed in detail by the minister of external affairs, and by his parliamentary assistant. I would then limit my comments to the most important issues discussed in those committees on which I had the privilege to sit, namely, the committee on economics and financial questions and the budget, committees Nos. 2 and 5.

(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, as most speeches, except that of my hon. friend from Chicoutimi (Mr. Gagnon) were made in English, I would like to go on with my comments in French.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the second committee deals with economic problems, which makes it one of the most important organizations of the United Nations, after the political committee.
Several questions were submitted to its attention, but the most important matter was doubtless that which concerned the economic development of backward countries. I would like to mention briefly two aspects of the question, that is, technical assistance and financial aid in view of the economic development of those countries.
It will be recalled that in 1950, the secretary general set up a technical assistance administration, which is part of the secretariat; in September 1950, Dr. H. L. Keenleyside, former Canadian deputy minister of resources and development, was made its director general.
I shall not linger to define the aims of that organization nor its operations, as its title is explicit enough and the parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs already gave us a splendid report on the matter.
However, I would like to add that during the debates of the committee, I heard this plan spoken of in most glowing terms, by the very countries which had profited by it. Supporting their assertions by proof, the various delegates told of the numerous advantages they derived from the functioning of that body; they expressed the wish that it should carry on for a long time yet its beneficial activities, while improving its work. Fifty members voted for the motion moved by the United States delegation and seconded by the Israeli delegation; none voted against, while ten countries did not vote at all; most of them belonged to the Soviet bloc. The resolution supported the recommendations put forward in this field, for 1952, by the economic and social council, during its last session. In the course of the proceedings, the Canadian delegation said how happy it was to see that this program had been so successful and voted in favour of the motion.
Another resolution introduced by the Israeli and Haiti delegations, to send teams of workers and technicians from underdeveloped countries to study the industries of industrialized countries, was also passed, by a vote of 40 for and none against; but there again,
External Affairs
it should be noted, the soviet group abstained. In this respect I might point out to the house that in the course of conversations with several delegates from underdeveloped countries, I was told that one cause for complaint in those areas was the lack of experienced workers and technicians which seriously hinders the development of their natural resources and of certain industries which could be established there. That confirmed the soundness of my opinion regarding that plan and I congratulate the government of Canada for having, again this year, contributed an amount of $850,000 to this agency's funds.
The most important matter that was discussed by the second committee, during the first part of that session, dealt with the financial aid to be given for the economic development of underdeveloped countries.
On that issue the commission divided into three groups. The first group, which comprised the Central and Latin American countries supported by the Arab countries and most of the Far East countries proposed, in their resolution, that the United Nations establish an international agency for development which would be able to give grants for economic development.
The second group, made up of the industrial countries of western Europe and of North America including Canada, although they recognized the importance of that problem and considered it with much sympathy since they admitted the principle of assisting in the economic development, was compelled to oppose that resolution particularly because of the heavy burden they have to bear as a result of their own defence programs. The United States, which, evidently, were to pour the greatest amount of money into that fund, also claimed that many organizations were already functioning, that in particular they were implementing the so-called Point Four of their foreign aid program through an organization, which had been created for the purpose of furthering the economic development of underprivileged countries, and that it would be ill-advised, for the time being 

I insist on the expression "for the time being" because the policy may change-to create too many organizations for the same purpose.
The third group, made up of the members of the soviet bloc, abstained from voting and took the opportunity to renew its usual and well-worn attacks against the western powers, holding that the adoption of such a program would only add strength to the capitalist nations, which would thus better their own economy and prepare themselves to wage war.

External Affairs
The Canadian delegation also made a careful study of the problem of contributions. Everyone knows that it is quite a complicated matter that affords no easy solution.
It is generally agreed that contributions are based on a system similar to our own income tax system, that is on the ability to pay. However, it is not always easy to apply that principle on the basis of a strict mathematical formula and it often gives rise to political and technical difficulties. On the other hand, it has always been difficult to establish schedules of contributions both fair and equitable.
For the past few years the Canadian delegation had always strongly advocated a better allotment of UN expenses among its various members. This year our delegation has succeeded in having the committee of experts set up to establish the schedules of contributions approve the recommendations of the House of Commons committee on external affairs, which were contained in the report submitted to the house on March 14, 1951 by its chairman, the member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette). This recommendation was as follows:
Your committee recommends also that Canadian delegations taking part in future in the meetings of the United Nations continue to insist that contributions by the Soviet union and its associates correspond more closely to their ability to pay.
Indeed, the contribution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which amounted to 6-98 per cent, has been raised to 9-85 per cent, while the rates of contribution of other countries in eastern Europe were also changed. On the other hand, the contribution of the United States was lowered from 38-92 to 36-90 per cent.
It was only after some lively discussions that these various rates of contribution were agreed upon, firstly because the soviet delegation, having pointed out the fact that its country had suffered a great deal of damage during the war, claimed it was not to be called upon to contribute more at the time. However, basing its action on the statements of several of their representatives who were boasting that their economic position was most brilliant and better than that of the democratic countries at the present time, the committee decided to override their objections. On the other hand the American delegation strongly opposed this scale of contribution, insisting that the committee apply immediately the terms of the resolution passed by the assembly in 1948, which stipu-

lated that, normally, no country should pay more than one-third of the total expenses of the United Nations. Nevertheless while admitting the importance of this argument, the committee decided that the time was not yet ripe to give effect to it.
For its part, the Canadian delegation exerted further pressure on the committee in order to seek acceptance, for next year, of another principle adopted by the assembly in 1948. According to this principle, it was recognized that under normal conditions the contribution of any one member could not be more per capita than that of the members paying the heaviest contribution. It will be recalled that this proposal had been agreed to at the time, on the Canadian delegation's insistence. Finally, the report of the contributions committee agreed to a resolution moved by Syria and the United Kingdom in which approval was sought of the contributions committee's report, it being specified that the principles adopted in 1948 should be applied as soon as possible. For the year 1952, Canada's contribution was set at 3-35 per cent.
There are other questions still, which have been studied by the fifth committee during that period; for instance, the suggestion of the American delegation, which has asked for the creation of a negotiation committee, comprising 11 members; it would canvass the various governments and collect voluntary contributions for all the United Nations specialized agencies. However, I shall not dwell at length on the other items on the agenda, for I have taken already quite enough time.
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I say that the United Nations Organization, although it is far from having achieved the purpose for which it was set up, accomplishes nevertheless some interesting work; our country has everything to gain by taking part in its deliberations and, in my opinion, must remain a member of that organization.
Before closing, I wish to say to the house that I was happy and proud as a Canadian to hear many other delegates from other countries say that Canada had an excellent reputation in the world, that we were privileged and had a bright and promising future.
I say once more, Mr. Speaker, that I was pleased to hear these words in praise of Canada because I am a Canadian and, if I may be allowed to say so, because I am a Liberal, since it can be deduced that those statements were made possible in great part by the healthy and wise way in which the Liberal party has governed Canada during

the past seventeen years, and since the fulfilling of its program will undoubtedly lead us to a future even brighter than the one forecast by eminent foreigners.
(Text):


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago when the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was addressing the board of trade in Saint John, New Brunswick, he stated that external affairs were not held in private any more, that it was the business of everybody. I would like to remind him of the old proverb which says that everybody's business is nobody's business.
However, I think he deserves a good deal of credit for trying to get the people of this country to understand what is going on at the United Nations, and what the policy of Canada is at the present time. I must confess however that to me it is not so much what he says with which I disagree as with what he does not say. I find he goes so far, in his diplomatic way, and leaves a lot then to conj ecture.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has spoken on many occasions around the country. It is a wonder to me how he finds time to be able to do so, the time to prepare those wonderful speeches. If everyone read them they would certainly get a great deal of enlightenment. But it seems to me that rather than facts what we want in connection with foreign affairs is principles.
I remember when the United Nations was being founded in San Francisco I was in the United States at the time, and I have a clear recollection of the efforts being made by some delegation to have a dedication at the beginning of the proceedings asking Almighty God's blessing upon their deliberations. An objection was raised by Russia and, as a result of that objection, no reference was made to Almighty God. That should remind us of the expression that unless the Lord build the house they labour in vain that build it.
Since then there has been a great deal of confusion in all the discussions at the United Nations. The people of Canada, and I believe those of other countries, must find it very difficult to follow the affairs of the United Nations. I was down in the vault in this building the other day, at which time I saw hundreds of documents which came from the United Nations. I wonder if anyone knows the extent of the printing that is poured out from that organization, in connection with all the different subjects they consider. Until I saw that pile of documents I had no idea that the organization was so extensive as it is at 55704-51
External Affairs
the present time. I doubt whether many people know just how big is the job of the United Nations, or how big is the job of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I say we ought to be concerned with principles. Russia went to the United Nations in the first place as an ally, and has been turned into our greatest opponent. We no longer regard Russia as an ally. It will be recalled that in Mr. Winston Churchill's speech at Moscow he said that we and the U.S.S.R. were going to march forward after victory, together, in a finer and more prosperous world. Are we seeing that peaceful and prosperous world today, or are we seeing another example of the tower of Babel?
When the North Atlantic treaty countries met at Lisbon this year, and were welcomed by their host, what was one of the first things he pointed out to them? He said that Spain, a country of 28 million people, was not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, nor is it a member of the United Nations. It seems to me there is a great deal of inconsistency in the attitude of the nations and ministers responsible for excluding Spain.
The leader of the C.C.F. party, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), who sits to my left, in recalling the discussion which took place in the committee on external affairs two years ago, reminded the minister that the announcement recently made that Russia wanted to balance seven of her recommendations against seven other states which were not communist, for entry into the United Nations, was discussed at that time, and that on that occasion both he and the minister seemed to consider that it was a reasonable proposal, that these communist states should be admitted, and that the other states that were anti-communist or non-communist should be also admitted. But I do not believe Spain was one of the states in the latter group.
What is wrong with Spain, that it is not even qualified either as non-communist or communist? It seems to me there is great inconsistency on the part of hon. members who are willing to take Roumania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Russia, which are communist states today, states with communist governments, as members in the United Nations, while at the same time they are not willing to have Spain, which was one of the first countries, if not indeed the first, to raise its banner and to raise its forces to fight the spread of communism in Europe.
Why is Franco deemed to be such an outcast? Why are these 28 million people in Spain, a country with which Canada has had a long association in commerce, deemed to be unworthy to sit as members in the United

External Affairs
Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Are the people of this country familiar with the governments of Greece and Turkey, or sufficiently familiar to classify them as being democratic, or as being more democratic than that of Spain? Has either of those countries a better record for government, or a higher record in contributions to civilization than has Spain? On what grounds are they considered more useful members of the United Nations than Spain would be?
And, sir, if we leave the European scene, which most hon. gentlemen seem to consider a most vital part of the world-this unsettled and uneasy world of today-and go to the Far East, what do we find? It has been pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) and by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Quelch) this afternoon that less than two years ago a document was published in which it was specifically stated that the aim of the United Nations was for a unified Korea.
All we want to do is put down aggression. I assume that by that the Secretary of State for External Affairs means the aggression of North Korea against South Korea. Perhaps he might tell me if I am right in that. He nods his head affirmatively. What about Chinese aggression? That is the aggression which has prevented the settling of the Korean dispute. The forces of the United Nations had advanced to the boundary between North Korea and Manchuria. The Chinese army, trained and I am sure equipped by the Russians, attacked and drove them back and we have suffered considerable loss of life and material since that time.
It seems to me that the aggression on the part of China is far more serious than that on the part of North Korea. I do not think North Korea had very much to say about it. They were egged and driven on and trained by the Russians for the particular purpose of attacking and conquering South Korea. But the Chinese situation is quite different.
Before I go any further perhaps I should congratulate the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) upon his speech the other day. I found it most interesting to listen to him, but I also found his speech rather provocative. I think he deserves some credit for giving a provocative speech because if it had not been so provocative I do not think I would have entered this debate. I do not know whether he should be given credit for that. However, he said some things which I feel require answering.
I remember that I interrupted him when he was speaking about China because he seemed to be saying things about China which seemed to be far from the actual facts. I do not

suppose either one of us has been in China, and certainly I have not. My contacts with Chinese have been few. I have a fair number of Chinese clients in my legal business. I know their general sentiments. But I have endeavoured to read something about China. I refer the hon. member to page 690 of Hansard of March 21, 1952, where he referred to Mr. Owen Lattimore. I remember reading articles by Mr. Owen Lattimore several years ago and I always put him down as a fellow traveller, even before I ever heard of Senator McCarthy. I certainly considered that he was to the left. Here is a passage in the hon. member's speech which aroused my objection:
Five years ago he warned his country that Chiang Kai-shek was out,-
Five years ago would be 1947. What inside information did Mr. Owen Lattimore have in 1947 that he could warn the United States that Chiang Kai-shek was out?
-that the Chinese people would have nothing further to do with him.


Major James William Coldwell: General Marshall said the same thing.


William Joseph Browne: I am referring to Lattimore at the present moment. The hon. member went on:
Like General Marshall he said that they should endeavour to find democratic personnel in China and support that personnel in the formation of a government or failing that to endeavour to get a coalition government, which would perhaps have some communist representatives, that would prevent the country falling into the arms of the communist leaders in China.
With all due respect to the hon. member, he certainly did not take into account the recent history of European nations. Does the hon. gentleman remember a man named Mickolizyck who was brought to Moscow and threatened and cajoled into joining the Polish government with communists nominated by Stalin? He was threatened and cajoled by no less a person than Mr. Winston Churchill himself. Despite his protests, he joined that government. What became of him? He had to fly for his life. Did his joining that government prevent that country falling into the hands of the communists?
Does he remember Czechoslovakia, for which I am sure he must have great admiration. That was a liberal, democratic, artificial state created after the first world war. Does he remember what happened there? What was the recent history with regard to Masaryk and Benes and the rest of them? I am sure they must have a soft place in the heart of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. Where are they today? Both of them are in their graves. One of them either committed suicide or was murdered and the other man

died of a broken heart when he saw his country gradually being taken over by the communists, the same communists whom my hon. friend has recommended Chiang Kai-shek should make an allegiance with?


Major James William Coldwell: No.


William Joseph Browne: That is what you said.


Major James William Coldwell: That was General Marshall's recommendation.


William Joseph Browne: Is it not a
rule of this house that if a member quotes somebody he is supposed to accept that as his own opinion? I took it that when my hon. friend quoted these gentlemen he was quoting them with approval.


Major James William Coldwell: I was quoting what he said at the time.


William Joseph Browne: I suggested that the hon. member was quoting them with relish, not just with approval.


Major James William Coldwell: I did not notice any relish.


William Joseph Browne: I doubt very much if the hon. member could rise in his place and justify that statement that he read us, whether he read it with relish or approval. My hon. friend begs the question, and he goes on to say:
Unfortunately support for the corrupt regime now in Formosa-
I question whether one, two or three men in a country of 450 million being corrupt would prove that the government was corrupt. I have read about Chiang Kai-shek and in his long career in public life, going back to his first association with Sun Yat-sen, during his twenty-five years in power, I have never read of his being accused personally of corruption.


Major James William Coldwell: Did the hon. member listen to the speech of the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie) who was in China for a long time with UNRRA?


William Joseph Browne: I have spoken to the hon. member for Lambton-Kent and I must say that I do not agree with his opinion any more than I agree with the opinion of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar.


Major James William Coldwell: He has been in China.


William Joseph Browne: He has been there, but it is a great country. Other people have been there. I have not been there, but 55704-51J
External Affairs
I am going to read the opinions of people who have spent a long time there. The hon. member went on to say this, as reported on the next page:
Because of the fear of Soviet Imperialism the democratic powers have been supporting reactionary regimes like that of the Syngman Rhee in South Korea.
I do not know what my hon. friend means by that. Supposing there is a truce? Are we going to say to Syngman Rhee, "You have to get out, we are going to put in a government here just the same as we would have done if we had obtained power in China"? Are we going to tell him that is what we would have done if we had been listened to five years ago? Where would we get the power to pick out the right type of government?


Major James William Coldwell: Perhaps we should pick the hon. member for St. John's West.


William Joseph Browne: Oh no; the
hon. member went on:
While we are not engaged in a war to put Syngman Rhee back in power-[DOT]
I do not know what we are engaged in; I am not sure that he knows.
-nonetheless there are elements among us who look upon that as a solution to the Korean situation. Then there is Chiang Kai-shek, and so on. The people of Asia are determined to throw off their bonds and we should be giving much more attention to this side of the problem than we have.
I do not know what side of the problem that is. Is that the sort of person who should toe governing the country when the war is over in Korea? Perhaps the hon. member will explain that later on.


Major James William Coldwell: Later on.


William Joseph Browne: The hon.
member continues:
If there is any disillusionment among the Chinese people at the present time, and I think there may be, regarding their new communist rulers, we certainly cannot expect any support from the Chinese for the return of Chiang Kai-shek.
On motion of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Alphonse Fournier: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow being Wednesday we will f ollow the procedure provided by standing order which stipulates that this shall be a private members' day. If I could have unanimous consent I should like to move:
That the provisions of standing order 28 relative to Mr. Speaker leaving the chair without question

Business of the House
put be suspended for the sitting of the house on Thursday, March 27, 1952, in order that the present debate on external affairs may be continued.
It would seem a pity that, with the way it is going, this debate should be interrupted. If I have unanimous consent, I would move that motion now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With relish.


Gordon Graydon: There is a certain stillness here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
ft
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 26, 1952