1953-02-13

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on marine and fisheries.-Mr. Ashbourne.


Mr. Alan Macnaughlon (Mount Royal) moved:: That the petition for a private bill to incorporate the Merit Plan Insurance Company presented on Thursday, February 12, 1953, together with the report made thereon by the clerk of petitions on Friday, February 13,	1953, be referred to the standing
committee on standing orders for such recommendations as they may deem advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the report which has appeared in the press referring to government intervention in the matter, has the Prime Minister any information to give the house with respect to the news report today as to a shortage in the funds of the Civil Service Co-operative Credit Society Limited and what steps have been taken by the government to deal with it?


Mr.   Sf. Laureni@: The Minister of Finance
can perhaps answer that.


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I saw the news report this morning. The Civil Service Co-operative Credit Society Limited is a credit society incorporated under the province of Ontario Credit Unions Act. It has been in existence for some forty years, I believe, and has some 9,000 members all of whom are federal civil servants. A short time ago it was discovered that there appeared to be shortages in the funds of the society amounting to some $120,000 or $130,000. The government, of course, is not in any way concerned, directly or indirectly, with the management of the society which is operated under the act to which I have referred; but it has an interest in the affairs of the society because all of the employees
are government employees. When the matter was reported to me it was indicated that the society proposed to take steps to investigate the management, auditing system and so on in order to ascertain what had caused the shortage; and as will have been seen from the press report this morning, a strong committee of senior civil servants has been set up to that end.
It is not clear yet what has caused the shortage but I think there is a pretty fair assumption that it has been inadequate bookkeeping methods over a considerable number of years; and it may well have been due to an improper setting up of profits which had not in fact been earned.
In any event, when the situation was reported to the government it was decided that, on the condition that the society take steps to see that its affairs were properly handled, the government would recommend to parliament the making of a loan to the society of up to $100,000 at an interest rate of 4 per cent, repayable in instalments out of profits. That is the position at the moment.



NATIONAL FILM BOARD


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Resources and Development (Mr. Winters). Can the ministei say if the decision has been made to move the national film board to Montreal? If so where is the new site to be, and when will the move be made?


Mr. Fullon:: If he can answer that, whj can he not answer my question?


Hon. Roberl H. Winters (Minister of Re' sources and Development):: Mr. Speaker
probably it will be recalled that J. D. Wood: and Gordon Limited, management consultants, in their report on the national filrr board in March of 1950, and the specia: committee on the national film board whicl was set up to study the board's annual re port last year, both reported the present ac commodation to be unsuited to the purpose: of the board. Both recommended that mori adequate accommodation be provided ant that the operations be assembled under om roof.
1906	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
In the light of these recommendations as well as those of the board itself, it has been decided to move the operating sections of the national film board to the Montreal area, and a site has been acquired by the Department of Public Works in Ville St. Laurent. Plans are presently being completed and it is proposed that construction of the building will start later this year. It will be at least two years before the move can be made.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder if I might ask a question of the Minister of Resources and Development in the light of the fact that he has just given an answer to the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton). Would the minister say when I may expect an answer to a question passed as an order for return by this house in connection with the same subject and asking for much the same information as the hon. member for Mount Royal asked for. The question was passed as an order for return on February 4, 1953.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Public Works is compiling the information and I understand that he will have a return which will be tabled very shortly.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  W. Chester S. McLure@Queens: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. MacNaught). I have had requests from the smelt fishermen on the East river in Prince Edward Island-and no doubt the department has had requests from them also-asking for an extension for ten days of the smelt fishing season. Will the department give consideration to this matter as it is of immense importance to the smelt fishermen.


Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: I
wish to thank the hon. member for Queens Mr. McLure) for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. I also received inquiries from the hon. member for tent, N.B. (Mr. Leger), the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. McWilliam) and he hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Robi-:haud) relative to the extension of the smelt ishing season in their respective constitu-mcies.
A complete investigation has been carried jut by the departmental officials and, as a result of that investigation, and from the 

experience gained last year when the closing dated was extended, it has been decided that it is not in the interests of the proper conservation of those species of fish to extend the season.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a
question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to make any statement as to the outcome of the conference that he was to have had at noon today with representatives of the civil service regarding rates of pay and hours of work?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Well, Mr. Speaker, I can report
to the house that there were compliments exchanged on both sides.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



DAIRY PRODUCTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with the messages that passed between the Canadian government and the United States government in connection with the embargo by the United States government against certain Canadian farm products. What was the nature of the representations made by Canada with reference to this question, and what was the reply of the United States as to the removal of these embargoes?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I am not in a position to give
any precise information beyond that which would appear in the note to the United States government which was printed as an appendix to Hansard of Wednesday, February 11, in which representations are made and previous representations are referred to.
The hon. gentleman's question is in pretty broad terms-I would imagine that the terms would apply even to livestock.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not speaking of
livestock but of certain agricultural products.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Field, vegetable or dairy products?


John George Diefenbaker: Dairy products.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Dairy products. Well, I will have the records looked up and get the precise information. For the moment the only precisions I can give are those which

are already on Hansard in this appendix to the report for Wednesday, February 11.



BRITISH COLUMBIA TELEPHONE COMPANY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask
the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) a question of which I have given him notice. Is the minister able to confirm a report that negotiations for the purchase by the British Columbia Telephone Company of the government telephone system in that province have been broken off or have been concluded?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: I am not aware that the negotiations
have broken down or have been broken off. As a matter of fact I do not know that it can be said that the negotiations have started. I indicated to the house some time ago that representatives of the British Columbia Telephone Company came to me following a report which our officers had made on the facilities in British Columbia. They simply asked that matters be held over for some time so that they could be allowed to study the report and come back. They have not yet come back and that is why I say I do not think that it can be said that negotiations have even started. I am informed, however, that they intend to come to Ottawa in the not too distant future.


Mr. Graydon:: Another exchange of
compliments.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That items Nos. 85 to 104 inclusive of the main estimates, 1053-54, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I had finished my remarks last night and only asked for the adjournment of the debate in order to protest against those members who shout "time" to you and who now have delegated themselves to be the keeper not only of your conscience but of your clock as well.


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, when he introduced the motion under discussion, the Secretary of State for
External Affairs
External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made a thorough and comprehensive report on the international situation and dealt particularly with our relations with the United States, South America and the commonwealth, outlining the government's policy in its relationships to those countries. He gave also detailed information as to the government's attitude on Korea, the situation in the Far East, and in southeast Asia, and he wound up his report with the problems facing NATO and the Canadian attitude with reference to them.
I think the house and the country will agree with most of what the minister said and, by and large, we all can. rejoice that Canada's policies are dictated by good judgment and by a cautious approach to every new development in world affairs; and also with courage and vision, assuming a firm attitude when required.
We are all in agreement, I think, that our over-all role should be the maintenance of peace in the world so that our country may continue to develop harmoniously and with the gigantic strides it has taken in the last ten years. But we are also determined to do our share to see that peace is secured by taking all the steps judged necessary to deter any nation from attempting to dominate the world. The minister has earned our approval and appreciation for the share he has played in drafting Canadian policies in international affairs, and for the role he has played on the international scene, as well as for the lustre that is reflected on Canada through his well deserved popularity and authority in the councils of the United Nations.
I have pleasure also at this stage in saying a word of appreciation of the part played by the member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) in his capacity as chairman of the external affairs committee. His career should stand out as an example to many young men who aspire to enter politics, as well as many new members in this house. Over the years the hon. gentleman has literally made himself into a worthy parliamentarian, and he deserves the highest consideration from his constituents, from his province and from this house.
Before entering upon the main body of my remarks, I should like to sound a note of caution as I did last year about the danger of accepting too readily the leadership of our neighbours to the south in international affairs. For too long a period of her existence has Canada been bound by British policies when this country was under the tutelage of that great power. For far too long have Canada's policies been based on British policies or influenced by British

External Affairs
interests since we have become of age. For far too long, in my opinion of course, this state of affairs has been more of a burden than an advantage to our country. Knowing how serious the consequences of being tied to the policies of a great power may be, no matter how friendly that power might be, we should be more than cautious today not to put ourselves in the same relationship to another great power. Surely we have not disentangled ourselves from the cobwebs of British international interests to tie our fate to policies that are made in Washington and about which we are not even consulted.
Of course Canadians realize that, in a world split into two spheres of influence, their own interest lies with those with whom they have the most in common and with the country whose economy has most impact upon theirs. Most Canadians have sympathy and understanding for their powerful neighbour but they would not relish the idea of playing the role of a satellite any more than the people in the satellite countries of the Soviet must like the role their country is called upon to play. It is hoped that the new administration in Washington will not overlook the advisability of dealing with our country with all due care and attention. In this way they may be certain that they will gain more friendship from a partner frequently consulted than from a reluctant or hesitant follower.
Canadian policies, Mr. Speaker, should be made in Ottawa, having in view Canadian interests and the commitments made by us in the interests of the preservation of world peace. I, for one, was favourably impressed by the cautious way in which the minister touched on the situation in Korea and the Far East during his speech. It is to be noted, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is committed to its share of the policing activities of the United Nations in Korea, and that is as far as this parliament has authorized the government to go. The statement by the minister that the guiding principle of Canadian policy in. Korea is to do everything possible to restrict the present hostilities to the Korean peninsula was a renewed assurance of Canada's position that will meet with wholehearted approval in the country.
I should like also to call attention to another statement the minister made which has the approval of most Canadians. He said, as recorded at page 1853 of Hansard for February 11, 1953:
We do not believe, accordingly, that the western powers should press for military or economic measures, at the United Nations or elsewhere, which would certainly not be supported and indeed might be actively opposed by important non-communist Asian states, and which without such support wculd be less effective in ending the Korean war than in extending it.
[Mr. Picard.1
And later on the same page he said:
It is, of course, very natural indeed to desire to hit the aggressor in new places and with new weapons, but it is also wise to realize that in consequence he may also hit us somewhere else and with new weapons.
The path, Mr. Speaker, between the desire for peace at all costs and the desire to see our cause triumph at all costs is narrow and full of dangers. In the first instance, we would agree to some bargaining, and in the second instance we might contribute to the doom of tomorrow, because no victor can emerge from the next conflict and enjoy his victory.
However, my object in rising today was not so much to expand on what the minister had said as to make a few remarks on the conditions that prevail in other parts of the world, and which may have a bearing on the maintenance of peace. In a situation such as that which has prevailed in the world since the end of world war II, one cannot overlook any of the events or problems which may, in one way or another, worsen the chances of preventing a new world conflict. Nor should we forget that the events in the world may depend on the outcome of other moves that may be made from time to time on the chessboard of the world.
One of the spots where problems may be less acute at this moment, but no less important than those prevailing elsewhere in the world, is the Middle East. When the politburo chose Korea as the testing ground of American resiliency, shall I say, there is no doubt that many spots were considered, and that the Middle East, particularly Iran, was one of the possibilities. The fact that they chose Korea should be a cause of satisfaction for us but not of reassurance. Our satisfaction must come from the fact that the Middle East is much more vitally important to us, and that the situation there may still be saved. But we should not be reassured until the proper and necessary steps have been taken to improve and consolidate our position in that area. These steps will demand more understanding and more determination to co-operate and help than has been shown in recent years by Britain, and more positive, friendly action than has already been taken by the United States.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the awkward and delicate position, in order to substantiate the views I have reached, of giving the house an account of a trip I undertook in the Middle East last fall. In the course of this trip I had the privilege of meeting most of the outstanding statesmen in that region of the world. If the house will bear with me for a moment,

I	shall give a few highlights of my journey, and mention some of the people I interviewed, before I come to the conclusions I have reached.
I might say, first, that all but one of the interviews I had I arranged myself upon reaching a capital by calling directly the secretary of the official I intended to see or in some instances the protocol section of the foreign affairs department. On such occasions I stated that my trip was purely personal, but that as a member of this house I would eventually report to it or to the external affairs committee. In each case I was received with the utmost courtesy, and I would say cordiality. Everywhere I found that Canada enjoys the highest consideration in that part of the world, and this may be explained best by using the words of one of these statesmen, who said:
Canada entered two world wars without being threatened in its territory; it did its share nobly without any other motive than that of sharing in collective security measures; it helped others in time of stress; it reaped no material gains in return. It hurt nobody because it had no expansionists aims, whether territorial or commercial. It is not surprising therefore that it still enjoys the consideration it well earned by its conduct.
Be that as it may, I must say it gave me great pride in our country to experience the warm hospitality and the greeting I received everywhere.
Before proceeding to the Middle East I spent about three weeks in Greece and Turkey where I had long interviews in Athens with Mr. Venizelos, the then minister of foreign affairs, and in Ankara with the foreign minister, Mr. Koprulu. In Teheran I met Mr. Navab, the then foreign minister, and Mr. Mabil the permanent under-secretary, as well as members of parliament and generals of the army. Unfortunately my appointment with Premier Mossadegh was fixed for a date on which it was not possible for me to return to Teheran. In Baghdad I met the acting minister of foreign affairs, the permanent deputy head of that department and the British ambassador. In Beirut I was received by President Chamoun, and also had an interview with Mr. Hamid Frangye who was twice a delegate of Lebanon to the United Nations. In Damascus I had a long talk with Colonel Shishakly, who led the coup of 1948 and is the recognized leader of the country. In Amman I was received by the prime minister, Tewfik Pasha Abuluda, and in Israel I had luncheon with the foreign minister Mr. Sharett. In Cairo I spent over an hour and a quarter with the prime minister, General Mohammed Naguib.
I apologize for this long reference to the personal contacts I established in the Middle 68108-122J
External Affairs
East but considered it better to do it that way so as not to refer later to any of the personal and sometimes candid and open statements made by some of these statesmen and leaders.
The first and consoling conclusion is that none of these leaders favour the advent of communism in their part of the world and that none would like to see Soviet expansion be the result of the actions of their governments. Most of them favour a form of mideastern entente connected with or related to a Mediterranean defence pact, but none would favour his country entering it unless it be on terms of absolute equality of status, and in the case of Egypt only when any form of external influence in the shape of occupational troops or otherwise has ceased.
None of them thought that the U.S.S.R. would attempt any violation of any territory in the Middle East unless a general war developed in the world. Some of them recognized the danger of communist uprisings or communist-inspired parties gaining power, but significantly enough none admitted this danger to exist in his own country.
As to the Israeli-Arab feud, both sides profess that they observed the armistice terms and that the other side did not. All expressed the conviction that the conflict will not flare up anew, but while Israel professes that it would be ready to sign a peace treaty along the lines of the armistice terms with minor modifications of frontiers, the Arab states do not appear to be ready to go that far at this moment.
There is a strong trend towards nationalism and a distinct suspicion of, and antagonism to, outside pressure or influence throughout the Middle East.
The result is that if there is distrust of the Soviets, there is not on the other side any particular sympathy for Britain, France or the United States. Britain is decidedly most unpopular in Iran, Israel and Egypt. France has lost popularity in Lebanon and Syria on account of the happenings in Tunisia and Morocco. As to the United States, they dominate the whole area commercially but they have gained yet no true sympathy.
Statesmen expect much from United States leadership but seem to think that the United States lacks understanding of their problems and of the mentality of their peoples. There is a great opportunity for United States diplomacy in the Middle East but much will depend on the personnel sent there by the new administration and by their approach to local situations.

External Affairs
in my rights in staying on the right hand side of the road", even though he sees a bulldozer right in front of him. We should not ruin the chance that we have of keeping :his nation in stability instead of being .nfluenced from within by communism.
I have met statesmen who have said that Russia will never invade any of these coun-;ries. Why should they? One by one nany of them might fall prey to inside communist influences. The only one where the danger is actually present is Iran, and I ;hink it is high time that the situation was ;aken in hand and something was done about it.
I will now consider Egypt where, as I said aefore, I had the privilege of having a long nterview with the prime minister. I arrived :here on the day after the agreement had seen signed with the Sudanese representa-ives and on the day also that Naguib was presiding over a meeting of the Arab League, [f I might interject another personal word, [ was supposed to see him at five-thirty, and it six-fifteen I saw coming out of an adjoin-,ng room all the members of the Arab jeague headed by the son of Ibn Saud, the irown prince of Saudi Arabia, who was ollowed by delegates of the other Arab tates.
I thought my interview would be very short t that time, since the hour was getting late.
had been told that the German ambassador vas supposed to see the general right after ne. In spite of that, however, I was brought a and told that there was no hurry.
The general showed considerable interest i Canada, and a better knowledge of this ountry than one would expect. He has a etter knowledge of Canada than I found n many other places, and knows about conations in our country. I might say, in pass-ng, that he complains that we have not eciprocated by sending a diplomatic mission here, when one has been established in lanada. I might also add that the same as been said in Lebanon and Israel. Evid-*ntly there are reasons for this about which 10 doubt the minister knows more than I do. dy only answer was that we hoped that ve might reciprocate in the not-too-distant uture.
I might add that I was favourably im-iressed by the general's unassuming, sincere md unselfish attitude. Despite all that may tave been said as to his dispensing with the onstitution for three years, I have become onvinced that he is devoid of personal mo-ives, and that his intentions were really to five his country a more democratic form of ;overnment, after the purification of the >resent parties.

The situation in Egypt, I need not remind hon. members, is such that out of a population of 20 million about half a million live decently, while the rest are on the verge of poverty. Without any wish to insult the relatives of any former ministers in that country, it was generally understood that to enter the cabinet ensured the fortune not only of the minister but of his friends and relatives.
The present prime minister said, himself, that one of the main endeavours in his work was to make sure that the same condition would not prevail in respect of the new group taking office. He pointed out that a reform of the civil service would take considerable time, and that we could not expect any radical change in a short time.
I was in the country to a point as far removed as the border of Sudan, and talked to many civil servants including judges and crown attorneys in rural districts. They all expect that within five years' time we will see a great change brought about by Naguib and his government. None seemed to think that the propaganda spread by the Wafdists and other enemies of Naguib proved that Naguib is a puppet in the hands of a few who run the country.
It is true that the movement came first from a group of young men in the army, many of whom were disgusted with conditions in the Egyptian army during the Palestinian war, and many others who just had army training and felt that they could do some good by helping to bring about a reform in the government of the day.
Those men at one time chose Naguib as the one most likely to gain popular favour, and the one whose advent at the moment would best bind the group together and strengthen it.
I must assure the house that the general opinion throughout the country, certainly among those people in different classes to whom I have spoken, is that the man himself is no fool, and that he is not the puppet of anyone. I came to the same conclusion after talking with him. The reform in Egypt came first in the agrarian laws, which I have read entirely, but the explanation of which would take too long. These reforms are earmarked to bring about better conditions throughout the rural classes, while not depriving the agricultural industry of the machinery already existing.
Personal holdings, for instance, are limited to 200 acres. Formerly holdings were as high as 50,000, 100,000 or 150,000 acres. Of course some will say that the breaking up of these vast domains which were operated in some instances with modern machinery

would work against the progress of agriculture in the country. The law provides however that in such territories as were administered as a unit the machinery shall be co-operative, as obtains in the great co-operative organizations in our own country, so that the people may share it.
Loans are to be given to these people. Owners are supposed to be repaid within a period of twenty years out of the rents the farmers will pay for their farms.
At the time I was there the two great events were the agrarian reforms and the agreement on the Sudan question. I saw yesterday that an agreement has been made with the British government concerning Sudan, an agreement more or less along the same line as the one that had been reached with the Sudanese themselves, except that in the first agreement they had the opportunity of choosing between complete independence and union with Egypt.
In the first one they were supposed to take that decision within three years in a plebiscite. In the new agreement there is added the possibility, according to British news agencies, of their joining the crown or staying with Great Britain through having some form of government under the British crown. But that is a minor point, in the end.
The important point was to let the people of the country determine the future of their own country: they were the ones to decide.
I might say this, that the reaching of that agreement, the unification of the people of the Nile, the throwing out, if I may use that word, of the outsiders, was the scheme claimed to be one of the great achievements of the general at the time.
During conversations the general said, "I am not anti-British. I recognize what they have done. I also recognize that over the last seventy years they have said from year to year that they were going out. They have not started to go out yet. I do not necessarily demand that they go tomorrow, but I would like to be sure that within a period of five years the country will be entirely free of outside troops. The reaching of that end can be studied and considered peacefully by the two countries."
Far from being an extremist or decidedly anti-British, I found the general to be very broadminded on all such questions. I found him to be well informed on all international affairs. I am one who thinks-and there are many others who are of the same opinion- that the present conditions in Egypt are for the good, and would bring about a betterment in the administration of the country, as well as of conditions throughout the country generally.
External Affairs
However, as was pointed out to me by some more democratically inspired statesmen during that trip, it is to be deplored that because of the lack of timely reforms the pattern developed in some of these countries in terms of a strong army leadership and undemocratic government. But, at this stage, to many this seems to be one of the necessary evils to counteract communist influence.
The leaders I met all professed and proclaimed that their aim was to promote an efficient restoration of democratic institutions, and they believed this to be possible only after a general purification of the former habits of autocratic governments which were democratic only in appearance, and in the hands of a few privileged leaders who ran the country only for their own selfish interests and those of their friends and families.
I had intended to talk about certain matters concerning the internal administration of the department. I think however that at this stage I shall leave the discussion of those matters until the (committee on external affairs sits. There is one thing though that I should like to say, before I take my seat, by way of a suggestion to the minister. Wherever I have entered a Canadian embassy abroad I have never seen a picture of the Governor General or the Prime Minister of this country. In some places they have a picture of the former King and Queen, probably the new Queen now, but after all we are a country that has institutions of its own and I do not think it would be considered political propaganda to display a picture of the Prime Minister and one of the Governor General, because with our institutions-let us hope i1 will take a long time to come

prime ministers may change and parties may change Therefore there is no political aspect involved in the suggestion. When foreigners enter our embassies I think it would be good for them to know that we have a representative of the Queen and that we have a Prime Minister. So far as suggestions are concerned that is as far as I will go at the moment with respect to the internal affairs of the department.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr
Speaker, in this debate the temptation i: great to range the world over but I intend t< discipline myself and speak on only one par ticular aspect of the United Nations, the posi tion today of the secretariat. Before I proceec to do that I think I should express the feelinj of pride with which Canadians saw a fellov Canadian, in the person of the Secretary o State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), pre side over the assembly of the nations of tb world. It was a great tribute to my hon

External Affairs
friend and one which was richly deserved. It was a tribute to Canada too, but since the minister has had no small part in the formulation of Canadian policy perhaps it can be construed indeed as a double tribute.
In his absence the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) made what I considered to be an admirable chairman. My appreciation stems partly from the fact that never at any time was I refused information which I wanted, and in large part because of his insistence on my right to object when I considered that the delegation needed some other and contrary point of view. It is, of course, rather lamentable that I should have to say these things in an election year, but since I consider them to be true that must be my justification. As for the members of the department who were at the UN in an advisory or other capacity, I found them always helpful, invariably willing to consider a proposition, frequently overworked, and never ready to say yes when they thought the answer should be no.
Now the whole problem of the secretariat is going to come before the meeting of the United Nations which will start next week. One can only hope that an acceptable solution will be found but as far as acceptability goes I must let the government know that our standards are going to be high. The United Nations is built on twin pillars, one of them being the loyalty of the member states, the other the efficiency, integrity and competence of the men and women who make up the secretariat. We harm the one and we hurt the whole structure; we destroy the one and we bring the structure down around our ears. STet an attempt is being made today, in some quarters innocently, in other quarters with Joe most deadly malice, to destroy the secre-;ariat and the value of the secretariat of the Jnited Nations.
What is Canada's view about the secre-:ariat? We find it expressed in a phrase in his year's copy of "Canada and the United *rations" where it is stated that "a secretariat >f very high calibre has been built up". Che Secretary of State for External Affairs juite understandably said little about this >roblem when he spoke, but I think it would lot be amiss to quote what he said on the !2nd of December on the adjournment of the eventh session of the assembly. He said:
I should like also to take this opportunity of laying a very well deserved tribute to the ecretariat and to its distinguished leader, the ecretary general. The continuity and effectiveness f the general assembly's work must depend very argely on the integrity and efficiency of our inter-[Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North) .3
national civil servants. The secretariat have once again served us loyally and well, and I should like to express the assembly's appreciation for their extremely hard work and devotion to what is often a thankless and difficult task; and to what is often a misunderstood ideal, that of international service.
Yet if one reads many of the magazines, periodicals and newspapers which come out of the United States one would believe that this organization is riddled with communists, and we are entitled to ask: Who is right? I do not profess to know everything about the secretariat; far from it. But I do know sufficient to say with firm conviction that the belief of Canada in this matter is impeccably right. The secretariat over the last number of months has been the victim of persecution which one can only describe as outrageous. Yet we have to consider it in the light of the whole social scene of the United States. We have to appreciate the intense desire of American parents to bring their own sons home from Korea. We have to appreciate the feeling that perhaps in this United Nations struggle in Korea they are fighting too much alone. It is a position which we in Canada can appreciate, for we remember only too vividly the days of 1939 and of course 1914.
Their anger and their wrath against the communists, when one considers the United States casualties, is understandable, but unhappily it has too often been diverted against the guiltless and innocent. The secretariat of the United Nations has been used as a stick with which to belabour the last administration, and it was so used for many months. There are certain types of politicians in the United States who have found that by crying "communist" loudly enough and often enough they will secure headlines and will be able to bask in publicity. Therefore they have been indiscriminate in their charges and one of the organizations which has suffered most has been the United Nations.
We have of course had the McCarran committee, a group which the Manchester Guardian has described as a grotesque body. We have the grand jury of New York which stated in December that there was infiltration into the United Nations of an overwhelmingly large group of disloyal United States citizens. Is it any wonder then that the people of the United States are afraid and doubtful as to what the United Nations really is doing in that country? Fear and doubt have been spread until the value of the secretariat has substantially diminished. When I was in New York I happened to read a dramatic criticism by Brooks Atkinson of the New York Times. There has been a revival of an old play, The Children's Hour,

and Mr. Atkinson quotes Burns Mantle as having this to say about it in 1934:
The true theme is the curse of scandalmongering and the whispering campaign, the kind of vicious lying that may easily wreck the lives of innocent people.
Mr. Atkinson goes on to say:
We are more keenly aware of the implications of the play today because slander is now a common factor in the life of the nation, accepted by many reputable people as an evil necessary to a search for genuine traitors.
I think Mr. Atkinson was unduly harsh on his own countrymen, for I feel that there are certain hopeful features about the situation, although not in the immediate future. I have a certainty that eventually the Americans will deal faithfully with the calumniators, the traducers of the reputations of men and women working in the secretariat. Yet the problem is an urgent one. I believe that Mr. Atkinson wrote more in anger than in sorrow. That is how I speak. I speak in anger towards a friend who is doing something unworthy and which thereby detracts from the lustre of his own good name.
When the secretariat was formed some years ago it attracted men and women from all countries-men and women who had a sense of devotion and who regarded it as an honour and privilege to work with the organization. They embarked upon their tasks with high hopes and perhaps even higher aspirations. Today those hopes are undermined and those aspirations expiring. The morale of the secretariat is being wantonly destroyed. We permit this to continue at our peril. Permit it to continue and we shall destroy the United Nations. As far as this group is concerned, and I hope other groups in this house, none of us is prepared to be a partner in that project.
Now, what are the duties of the secretariat? Here I quote from the United Nations charter, article 100, subsection 1, which reads in part: In the performance of their duties the secretary general and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the organization.
Subsection 2 reads:
Each member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the secretary general and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.
And in article 101, paragraph 3:
The paramount consideration in the employment of the staff and in the determination of the conditions of service shall be the necessity of securing the highest standards of efficiency, competence and integrity.
To go further I have here the rules and regulations of the United Nations secretariat
External Affairs
which were published on December 1 of last year. Regulation 1.1 states that:
Members of the secretariat are international civil servants. Their responsibilities are not national but exclusively international. By accepting appointment, they pledge themselves to discharge their functions and to regulate their conduct with the interests of the United Nations only in view.
Regulation 1, paragraph 3:
In the performance of their duties members of the secretariat shall neither seek nor accept instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the organization.
The position I take is that where a member of the secretariat of the United Nations is loyally fulfilling what is required of him either through the charter or through the staff regulations, then there can be no grounds whatsoever for dismissal, no matter how importunate individual nations may be. Today in the _ United Nations itself many of the ordinarily accepted democratic rights of people have disappeared.
I have in my hand the universal declaration of human rights as adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations on December 10, 1948. Article 12 states:
No one shall be subjected ... to attacks upon his honour and reputation.
That is what is happening today.
Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
That is not happening today. That protection has never been accorded them either by member states or the secretary general whom one would have thought would have gone to the defence of his own staff.
Then one can read also article 19 of this same declaration of human rights:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Today the degree of fear which prevails m the United Nations is so great that the right to freedom of opinion has disappeared in the sacred name of conformity.
Let me quote again from the grand jury which made its presentment on December 2 of last year-and if one cares to go further one can read the recent report given by the secretary general on January 30, 1953:
This presentment contained no indictments and mentioned no names. It set forth certain conclusions and made certain recommendations. Among the conclusions were statements that there was ''infiltration into the United Nations of an overwhelmingly large group of disloyal United States citizens and that this situation constituted a menace to the security of the United States.
There is the flat assertion that there has been "infiltration into the United Nations of an overwhelmingly large group of disloyal"

External Affairs
people; and yet when one reads this report of the secretary general does one not come appreciably nearer to the facts?
Paragraph 45 of the secretary general's report states:
It should be noted that with a single exception no staff member has ever been indicted or charged in any court with espionage or any other subversive activity. In one case a staff member- not of United States nationality-was convicted of espionage in the United States and left the country. The espionage in no way related to the staff member's functions as a United Nations official. In a further case a staff member-also not of United States nationality-was terminated while on home leave after the United States government said he had attempted espionage.
What then are we to believe, the unsupported testimony of the grand jury which has been accepted as truth by so many or the facts which are given to us by the secretary general himself? Lest there be a feeling that this attack does not affect us as Canadians I may say that feeling is not shared in other quarters and in other nations. The London Times on December 2, 1952, in commenting upon the jurists' report which I shall deal with later, in part said:
It may well not be intended now to pass every international civil servant through the familiar searching sieve of motives, thoughts and associations, as well as deeds, but the menace is there.
As far as I am concerned and as a Canadian, I see this menace in some of these alleged loyalty investigations and I shall be very interested in knowing what stand our government will take if by any unhappy chance a Canadian is ever accused of subversive activity in the United Nations. As far as loyalty tests go, let me quote from a book "The Fear of Freedom", by Francis Biddle, one-time United States attorney general. Mr. Biddle states:
The vice of the federal loyalty program Inheres in Its departure from a basic concept of our laws and constitution that persons should be penalized for their conduct, not for their beliefs, and not for the acts of those with whom they associate.
We in Canada unanimously reject that vice in determining guilt, for thought control is no part of our democratic process. Yet, individuals today are being dismissed because the United States government, without submitting proof, considers them to be subversive. I have here a list of some eleven people and this is the headline in the Winnipeg Free Press "Eleven Communists in UN Pay, U.S. Charges". The article states in part:
The eleven were named in a memorandum made public Thursday over objections of John Hickerson, assistant secretary of state, who cautioned that the state department could have erred by wrongfully naming some persons or by failing to name some who should be named. He emphasized that

none of the adverse reports was based on sworn testimony, and that those named had been given no hearings.
So, because of unsupported testimony, without giving people a chance to defend themselves, we immediately destroy what they depend upon most in this world, their reputation. I am not prepared, because of hearsay, to condemn someone; nor am I prepared to condemn without proof. I think all of us believe that that will not be the standard of our own government, but the unhappy fact is that today the United States is insisting that its national standards shall be carried into the United Nations. There can be no greater danger than to approve of this concept that national standards will decide the fitness of the employees of this organization. I reject that concept completely out of hand, and for a good reason. It was Mr. Justice Black who said that individual freedom and governmental thought probing cannot live together. To us, individual freedom is paramount and that is why we reject these standards.
It is conceivable however that the secretary general, himself under the heaviest influence and pressure, may have accepted them. On several occasions the secretary general has complained that the information which has been given him by the state department is too slight or too scanty to merit the dismissal of an employee. Yet employees have been dismissed. The secretary general states that the only words he has been given are these cryptic words by the state department such as "reject"; "questionable"; and "incomplete". On the basis of these words he has to make up his mind whether or not he defers to the wishes of the United States government. Time after time the secretary general has dismissed employees. The unhappy thing is that when these dismissals were appealed to the administrative tribunal, the highest body of appeal within the United Nations, time after time the tribunal has disagreed with the secretary general and said that there was not sufficient information to warrant the dismissal. However, the secretary general is supreme when it comes to the staff, and he has insisted on his right to dismiss the employee.
The secretary general has had to pay the employees large sums in indemnity for wrongful dismissal. It would be interesting indeed to find out how much has been paid in the way of indemnity for such dismissals. I am not unduly surprised to find that Mr. Lie would like to see the administrative tribunal abolished. A new advisory group has been set up and this may be the precursor to the abolition of the tribunal. But it also

is only advisory. I do not know what its terms of reference are, and I doubt if anybody does. I know that there are two members of this advisory board who are well known to Canadians. The first one is Ralph Bunche and the other is L. W. Brockington. Men such as these, nurtured in our democratic processes, are going to insist that there be evidence before the secretary general dismisses anybody. But if history is a criterion, and I hope in this case it is not, that evidence will not be forthcoming. This advisory group headed by Mr. Brockington, therefore, will be faced with complete stultification. If so, in the near future one can foretell the resignation of the chairman.
The board is going to be faced not only with that problem but with what is called the problem of the host country. Let me say here and now that I am not prepared to concede rights to a host country which are not applicable to every other member nation of the United Nations. Take our own position, for instance. We are a host country to one international organization, the international civil aviation organization in Montreal. Not only are we the hosts, but to some substantial extent we subsidize it. Therefore we could say that, as host country, we ought to have some substantial say in the matter of personnel. On the assumption that the employees are doing their duty as we expect them to do, I wonder what this house would say if it knew that the government had attempted to secure the dismissal of employees in ICAO because the government did not like what they were thinking. I am certain that the row in this house would go beyond all the bounds of propriety.
Yet we are presented with the same argument in the United States. The United States now foots the greatest part of the UN bill, and it is said that we should therefore accede to their desires. That is not an argument which I, for one, am prepared to accept. I have read that a United States senator demanded that what he considered to be subversive elements in the United Nations should be dismissed immediately or the United States would have to consider very carefully whether or not it would continue its large financial appropriation for the purposes of that organization. That, Mr. Speaker, was something too close to blackmail, and I do not like that sort of blackmail. What is going to happen in the United States if the government of that country decides a certain employee is subversive and the government is not prepared to submit evidence to the secretary general, who then states that the employee will not be dismissed?
External Affairs
Here we are faced with the problem as it exists today. I do not know the answer. Possibly the UN could create some new sort of committee to act as intermediary between the secretary general and the state department, a committee which would be supreme and which would finally make the decision on whatever case is presented. Yet I insist that such a decision must be within the terms of the charter, and must be such that no one nation can have the right to interfere with the secretariat itself.
Now, I said earlier that employees had been wrongfully dismissed and their co-workers on the United Nations staff knew that they had been wrongfully dismissed. The latter, therefore, decided to contribute toward a fund for the legal defence of their colleagues. The house might be interested in knowing how this fund was raised, because it was done anonymously. The secretariat of the United Nations did not dare publish a list of contributors, and I doubt if anybody knows who the contributors are. An envelope, with a mimeographed enclosure, was given to every member of the staff. They were asked to contribute, without signing their names and certainly not by cheque, a certain sum of money for the defence of their colleagues. To make sure that none could be accused in this activity all the envelopes had to be returned. When such a situation occurs, I state there is a reign of fear in the secretariat of the United Nations. It is a situation which has to be rectified.
Now, in the midst of this disturbance and conflict, the secretary general decided to appoint three lawyers to answer certain questions. These three lawyers were popularly known as jurists. Again, if I can refer to the London Times, I notice that it scrupulously eschews the use of the word "jurist", and refers to them as lawyers. Nevertheless, I shall defer to the common usage. But, these jurists did this job in about two weeks. In that brief time they resolved questions which had been perplexing other people for months. Their haste, of course, may have been their undoing, because while undoubtedly much of what they say is laudable and there is much with which I can agree, nevertheless, there are some parts of this report which are not acceptable under any circumstances whatever.
The secretary general asked these jurists to deal with the position of United States nationals in the United Nations secretariat. On page 5 of the report the jurists state:
Although your questions relate in terms specifically to United States nationals who are also members of your staff, we have found it impracticable to deal with that subject without taking into account also the position of members of your staff of other nationalities who are resident in the United States . . .

External Affairs
This report, then, covers all members of the secretariat in the United States. On page 19 of their report the jurists proceed to give some advice. I am going to read some of the worst of it, but perhaps in some ways the most important. They say:
In exercising his responsibility for the selection and retention of staff the secretary general should regard it as of the first importance to refrain from engaging or to remove from the staff any person whom he has reasonable grounds for believing to be engaged or to have been engaged, or to be likely to be engaged in any activities regarded as disloyal by the host country.
Let us consider those last words, and I am reading the original report, "activities regarded as disloyal by the host country." In what sort of position would that place a Canadian as far as the United States is concerned? What about a Frenchman or a Belgian or a Norwegian? Surely their loyalties are to their own countries. But we are told that this document deals with all members. If they were loyal to their own countries, automatically they had to be disloyal to the host country. This was nonsense and the phrase was corrected by the three jurists in a corrigendum which was issued later and which read:
Replace the words "any activities regarded as disloyal by the host country" by the words: "any subversive activities against the host country."
Here was the penalty of haste. Let us consider another aspect of this matter. We have men alleged to be international jurists who are setting out terms which govern members of the secretariat of the United Nations. They ask for the dismissal of a person likely to be engaged in subversive activities. But how can Mr. Lie forecast the future? The secretary general is supposed to be a sort of soothsayer; he is supposed to know what is going to happen a couple of years from now. What sort of absurdity is that in terms of law?
Then the jurists go on to suggest that the secretary general should automatically dismiss any employee of the United Nations who pleads the fifth amendment before a United States committee. The fifth amendment to the United States constitution was designed by its framers to be a lamp post to guide the innocent, but today it is a lamp post on which to hang the innocent. That is what the jurists suggest we do.
An individual pleading the fifth amendment before a United States committee such as I have described may do so because of the fear that he may condemn himself out of his own mouth and be subjected to some further criminal action. I believe that there are members of the secretariat who have pleaded the fifth amendment before these committees

for the good reason that they felt that as they were under oath they would be guilty of perjury if they made an error. The questions which were asked are very searching. They went back a long time, even a decade. I doubt if there is any hon. member here who can say what he was doing on June 5, 1942, or with whom he had lunch on that day. Yet if the witness makes a mistake and does not through error, tell the truth, he is guilty of perjury and subject to the full penalties of the law.
There is another aspect to this matter. Some employees found that no matter how guiltless they have been, they were being asked questions, not concerning themselves but concerning their friends, their acquaintances and their colleagues. They had to answer those questions and before they knew what was happening they had woven a web of circumstantial evidence around their own friends. The situation became intolerable. One of the results of such wretched investigations was the death of a distinguished servant of the United Nations, Mr. Abraham Feller. As far as we are concerned, this report cannot and must not be accepted without the most drastic amendment.
There was a letter in the December issue of the Canadian Bar Review signed by W. Friedmann, J. B. Milner and F. E. LaBrie, who are on the teaching staff of the school of law of the University of Toronto, and also by F. R. Scott, of the faculty of law of McGill university. I should like to quote the closing part of this letter which is headed "Loyalty Tests and the United Nations Secretariat." It reads:
The recommendations of the commission, particularly because of the proposed dismissal from employment on grounds of refusal to testify before investigating bodies, have increased the sense of insecurity in the United Nations secretariat. At a time when the United Nations and other international institutions are undergoing severe political testing, the commission's opinion must in all fairness be considered a surprisingly unsatisfactory treatment of the complex problems presented to it. The statute of the International Court of Justice describes as a source of law the "general principles of law recognized among civilized nations". A similar test should determine United Nations standards, of substance as well as procedure. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the General Assembly in December 1948 by a vote of 48 (including the United States) to 0, with 8 abstentions, also lays down standards which ought at least to be applied to the United Nations itself. The United Nations must work out its own code. Conviction by a national court for such major and generally recognized offences as treason, sedition or the betrayal of official secrets should justify dismissal from the United Nations, but the adoption, in any one country, of special offences, and investigation procedures that fall short of established standards of fairness, cannot be regarded as part of generally recognized principles,

and therefore as a proper standard for the United Nations. Such national practices should not therefore by themselves establish good cause for dismissal.
Within a few days our delegation is going back to the United Nations charged with the high responsibility of maintaining intact the charter of that organization and the inviolable right of the individual in a democracy. We shall watch it with anxiety and also with the hope that it will fulfil these objectives.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to follow my hon. friend in detail, although I realize some of the difficulties incident to the problem that he has brought before the house. I am a believer in the preservation of those things which constitute our freedom. I think all are agreed that we should not allow the United Nations to be weakened by those who would by innuendo and slander destroy the reputation of innocent persons within the secretariat. On the other hand there is the issue to be faced that the security of the state must be assured at all times.
I for one believe that a host country should not adopt measures that would destroy fundamental freedoms; nonetheless, while maintaining the freedoms unimpaired the democracies have the right to demand that diplomatic immunities shall not be utilized as a means to undermine the host state and to provide, for those who practise treason, protection that ought not to be assured to them. Freedom with security must be maintained. I know that we of the British tradition will follow the lead given in the House of Commons in the United Kingdom in the last few days by Sir Douglas Maxwell Fyfe, who, in the course of an address dealing with the serious situation that exists by reason of the changed conditions of modern times and the use by the communists of propaganda to undermine from within the states in which they are living, took his stand for freedom and the preservation of fundamental freedom without which democracy cannot exist.
We have to guard against a very dangerous perversity of human nature, which is that mankind often imitates the thing it hates in order to defeat the subject of its hatred. I shall say no more at this time than that in these days there are tremendous responsibilities on the state to preserve the state from the termites who would destroy it, while at the same time preserving the fundamental freedoms without which democracy cannot survive.
On this occasion I intend to make some general observations in connection with the United Nations assembly, which I had the
External Affairs
honour to attend, and to place before the house some suggestions that have come to me as a result of that privilege and opportunity. It is a privilege, because one sees and hears at first hand what is going on internationally; and it also gives members of the opposition the right and firsthand knowledge to criticize and to offer alternative suggestions without which a discussion on foreign affairs would be as shadowy as it would be meaningless.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said, the international situation is a worrying one. Toynbee has described the age in which we live as "a time of troubles." The minister was very optimistic in his word picture of the world situation, and went a long way farther along the road of optimism than did Mr. Churchill a few short days ago upon his return from the United States. The Soviet pendulum seems to swing. Occasionally it looks like impending war, but when resistance and unity are revealed among the democratic nations, the pendulum seems to swing back, and for a time peace seems imminent. At such time for the benefit of the syndicated press Stalin gives an interview indicative of a desire and wish for world peace. But as Tito has said- and he knows the mind of the Soviet- whatever the changed processes may be, the Soviet purpose is still world domination. To use his warning words, "there may be a change in tactics but there is never a basic change in substance."
The reading of history provides lessons for today. Within the last year there was uncovered by the archaeologists of Princeton university in Athens a marble slab which had been carved in 336 B.C., upon which there was an inscription forbidding the establishment of a dictatorship in Athens, and prescribing heavy penalties for anyone who aided or assisted the dictator. And yet within two years after that, Alexander the Great had destroyed the democratic and independent existence of the Athenian republic and the other Greek republics because they had not learned the lesson of unity. They divided into separate units, each of them going its own way and as a result individually fell a prey to dictatorship. That message is a message for today. The free states of 1953 will survive if they stand together and* in uniting for collective security, to use the modern expression, resist the advance of communist dictatorship.
There will always be some who will proclaim the gospel of fear. Whatever stand is taken, dire destruction will follow. We heard the fearful when a stand was taken in Korea

External Affairs
originally in 1950. We hear the fearful again in the situation created by the deneutralization policy of the United States respecting Formosa. We had it when the nations decided to rearm western Germany, or were contemplating steps in that regard. We had it when NATO was set up. On every occasion when the United Nations or the democratic nations have taken a stand, we have been faced with the fear of some that the stand being taken would be provocative to the U.S.S.R. and would lead to war.
Subsequent events have not established the truth of the prophecies that were made by those who fear. That does not mean that I advocate, or that anyone else within the democratic nations advocates, provocative measures; but it does mean that the events of the last few years have clearly established that in strength and in unity there is the only hope for mankind.
An event of the last few days in Europe has been a particularly hopeful one. At ten o'clock in the morning of February 10 an engine pulling 27 cars of German coke crossed the boundary into France without stopping for customs inspection. It was not an operation of smugglers; it was the beginning of a new era in trade in coal, iron and steel in six nations in Europe, some of them hereditary enemies, joined together in a common unity brought about through the dangers incident to the presence of the spectre of communism. That step, Mr. Speaker, no one would have looked forward to in 1945, a step that may ultimately lead to the federation of Europe which was dreamed of during the days of the Council of Vienna. It reveals an unheard of unity in Europe.
These periodic debates on external affairs are very helpful. They clarify the atmosphere. These debates have their value when we find taking part in them men such as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), who has been engaged for years in international affairs; men of the reputation, capacity and experience of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), whose training in international affairs goes back to 1945; men like the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), who has spoken with calm authority on this and on other occasions; men like the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who, following his recent visit to Europe, brings vividly to parliament what he learned there; and I could continue the list.
Now a word on this debate. I was somewhat disappointed not with the quality of language used by the minister in his review, but that in his remarks on this occasion and
those of a few days ago, on February 5, there was no direct information concerning Canada's stand on the question of the deneutralization of Formosa.
A reading of his speech of February 5 reveals qualified acceptance of the new policy of the United States with a veto in the background. There is in his remarks nothing to indicate the stand being taken by the government of Canada on this problem. That is not enough in these days when international problems, with their widespread repercussions, are before us. The uncertainty of the stand to be taken by Canada, and being taken at this time, is not in keeping with Canada's responsibility.
Yesterday the hon. member for Peel made reference in allegorical form to the speech of the minister. I refer to it directly and say that I think it lacked substance when it dealt with the problem of a deneutralized Formosa. In Canada, situated as we are as interpreters between the United States of America and members of the commonwealth, we have to be careful in what we say. We have to refrain from thoughtless criticism of the United States, whose sacrifices and service in Korea for the preservation of the principles for which the United Nations stand are immeasurably greater than the combined activities of the other members of the United Nations. But surely we have a right to more information than that found at page 1639 of Hansard, where the minister said:
The government will follow developments with the closest possible attention and take appropriate action to make our views known if and when the occasion so warrants.
That, I thought, was a weakness in the minister's speech. Great Britain has taken her stand. I am not advocating that stand; but at least we know what the stand is. Canada is in a dual position in that not only are we adjacent to the United States, but the minister now occupies the position of president of the United Nations, a position incidentally equivalent to that occupied by Mr. Dandurand in 1925 in the league of nations.
Then the minister added these words:
Meanwhile I think it would be unwise and premature to jump to dogmatic or critical conclusions concerning the step taken by the United States government, and announced in a statement by President Eisenhower which contained so much that was wise and heartening to us all.
That statement is a masterpiece of circumlocution. It starts off by saying that we are not going to jump to any dogmatic or critical conclusions regarding the policy as to Formosa, but we are heartened by some of the other statements made by the president. I think we deserve a clearer announcement of policy than that.

The situation is a difficult one, and I realize it. All the United Nations are in Korea. All accepted responsibilities when President Truman gave the lead. What is to be done there? What attitude is to be taken? It has been said that there are only three possible attitudes: Fight it out; stick it out; or get out. Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) added another alternative to that group.
Fight it out? No, because that is what we are endeavouring to avoid. Stick it out? There is no other course consistent with the preservation of the United Nations for world peace. Get out? That is something beyond the thought of any responsible person in the United Nations. But I do think those three alternatives place the problem before parliament. I realize the tremendous responsibilities resting upon the minister; but I do contend we have a right to know what Canada's position is. Why should not we in Canada know, when people in the United States and in Great Britain know the stand of their governments on this problem? We cannot adopt a mere middle course.
It is of interest that hon. members of the C.C.F. criticize the stand now being taken by the United States. As I recall it, three years ago they criticized the stand taken when Formosa was neutralized. The minister has a responsibility to place this matter before the House of Commons in clear outline. Shall it be a policy that will be merely one of stalemate as the years roll by and the casualties increase? That is one side of the coin. The other is the fearful possibility that any action we take or that is taken by any of the nations within the United Nations may have the result of spreading war not only throughout Asia but throughout the world.
I agree with the minister that this is no time for loose talk; it is no time for cavilling criticism of the United Nations. It is time for unity within the United Nations. In order to have strongly built the foundations upon which the United Nations stand, the world needs a foundation in the hearts and souls of people everywhere. We can have this only when democratic peoples have some conception of the basis for the policies to be taken.
In order to maintain the foundations of the United Nations, and to secure that support, democratic statesmen must place before their people in clear and unequivocal outline something of the stand that the governments of their respective nations intend to take. The great danger, as communism moves across the world, is that our people shall become wearied in well-doing, believing
External Affairs
that all is well and that the shadow of communism will never become a spectre of world destruction.
Last evening in an address over United States radio systems the secretary of state of the United States, Mr. Dulles, drew a dark and fearful picture. His claim was that unless the European nations move promptly toward unity they will risk peril from which it will be beyond American power or world power to save them. He pointed out the need of unity between France and West Germany on the problem of laying the foundations for a continental army. He stated that the only hope for Europe is the European defence community plan which requires the unification of the military forces of France, West Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands and Luxembourg, and he indicated that unless this unity is achieved the North Atlantic Treaty Organization will have the shadow of power but not the substance to meet the threat.
How terrible the problem is. France, realizing that twice in one generation she has been attacked, naturally fears the restoration of a strong German national army. On the other hand, without that army Europe faces communist domination too awful to contemplate. I think Canada could give a lead in this regard by asking the nations who are signatories of this agreement to give France the assurance that Canada will join with Britain in supporting the extension of the NATO charter from 20 years to 50 years so that it will coincide with the period of the European defence treaty. Building hope in Europe is a contribution all in America can make. Show France that we believe in the extension of NATO to the end that if an army, composed in greater or lesser measure of West German forces, is mobilized as part of the European defence army, the principles of NATO will be maintained during the entire period of the European defence period.
I want to come now to the question of the United Nations. In 1945 I had the privilege of being in San Francisco and seeing laid there the foundations of the United Nations, represented as they are today by the doors to the new assembly building which were presented by Canada and depicting truth and brotherhood, justice and peace. In 1945 the minister was one of the architects of that charter, as was the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon). They could not contemplate then the days that lay ahead with communism, operating through its cultists of confusion, endeavouring to undermine and destroy many of the purposes fcr which the United Nations was constituted.

External Affairs
In those days the delegation was composed of representatives of the various parties in the house. Opposition members now are in the position of observers. I think the change was a good and necessary one. I think Canada has given a lead to the members of the United Nations in sending outstanding representatives of the cabinet to the meetings of the general assembly. As everyone knows, Canada has as two of its representatives the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), and in the present assembly the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). Most of the nations, however, are represented by delegates who have not the authority that ministerial rank would give them. Britain has representatives of ministerial rank, as has Canada. I think it would be a great advantage for the United Nations if other nations within the organization would follow the lead given by these two countries.
I am going to review some of the changes that have taken place since the charter was drawn up in 1945 because, as was said yesterday by the hon. member for Peel, with the time coming shortly when the charter is to be subject to review, consideration should be given to recommendations for changes in the charter by the external affairs committee of this house. There is one thing Canada should do, which I think is long overdue, and that is to realize, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare does, the abiding need of the preservation of our fundamental freedoms. Long since there should have been a submission to parliament of the international declaration of human freedoms for approval by parliament and adoption by Canada.
I want to say a personal word about the two ministers. As one who occupied a very ordinary position, I can say that as a result of their kindness and consideration we co-operated in a manner that I will never forget. There was no concealment of information. The observers were allowed to know what was going on. Every possible consideration was shown, thereby assuring an amicable spirit in keeping with the best traditions of Canadian parliamentary life. The Minister of National Health and Welfare made a speech with respect to human rights on the 17th of December in which he said this:
I do not believe it necessary for me to stress here that the question of human rights has become one of primary interest for the United Nations.
He went on to say:
The question of human rights, after all, is the cornerstone of our charter and has been proclaimed all over the world through the universal declaration of human rights.

I would suggest to him that he have the government submit that declaration, now four years overdue, to the parliament of Canada. There can be no justification for the failure of the government to do that. Some might argue that some of the provisions have to do with property and civil rights, but the declaration has no juridical value. It is in effect an embodiment of principles and ideals and it ought to be brought before parliament, for Canada is one of the few nations that, while accepting, proclaiming and practising human freedoms, have failed to show the members of the United Nations that its parliament supports them.
May I here interpolate and say that one of the most interesting events that occurred while I was there was to hear Vishinsky making one of his harangues. I was there as a visitor two years ago when Dr. Vladimir Clementis made his speech and in towering language described the wonders of communism. I was there the day two years later when Vishinsky delivered almost the same speech, and on that very day Clementis was dying on the gallows because he was believed to harbour improper thoughts on the subject of Soviet domination. I will never forget that speech by Vishinsky. I have never known anyone who gave his own autobiography so accurately as he did on that occasion when he was describing, with malicious deviation from the truth, the cruelties which he alleged were perpetrated on the communist prisoners by the United Nations. He said this:
I can hear them shooting down the communists as mad dogs. I see the beating and I hear the shouting. I see the tattooing and I hear that shooting. I hear the rattle of the machine guns and the groans of the dying under their hangmen guards. I see the searchlights, and then I see the end. With their spirits entirely broken they will come quaking with the fear that will have been implanted in them in the course of that procedure; they will be utterly incapable either of asking any questions or . . .
-answering any.
It was a portrait of Vishinsky himself, the author, the perpetrator of the purge of 1938. It was indeed the epitome, those sordid and untruthful words, of all of the tragedy, horror and fearful intensity of communism in practice. That very day the foreign minister of Czechoslovakia went to the gallows, and if I may paraphrase the immortal words of Grey:
The paths of communist glory lead but to the hangman's noose.
Yes, we saw communism that day as it was, from one who knew.
Mr. Speaker, you may ask me what changes in the revision I might suggest? I believe the United Nations assembly is facing

its greatest test today, undermined by those who are its critics. It will meet that challenge if the representatives to the United Nations from its various members give their people a picture of its usefulness. The security council has been emasculated by 55 Soviet vetoes since 1945, but I doubt if the veto power will be changed in any revision that will take place. But the events of the last few years have established and added another veto, not under the charter but a veto of practice and procedure. That veto is in the assembly which, under section 18 of the charter, requires a majority of the members to bring matters before the assembly, and a two-thirds majority in the case of serious matters advanced. In the last few years the assembly is being weakened by small nations joining together and thereby forcing action in placing on the agenda, for consideration by the assembly, matters that have no place on the agenda and are not deserving of consideration, such as those in which the processes of diplomacy have not been exhausted or in respect of which the peace of the world has not been threatened.
I would suggest that it might be possible- and I realize the conditions inherent in the attitude of opposition to change taken by the U.S.S.R. and puppet states that are members -that some tribunal should be set up to determine whether or not any question that is brought up for consideration should be placed on the agenda of the assembly. Unless that is done more and more the assembly will sit for longer and longer periods dealing with matters which have no place on the agenda; matters that were not contemplated by the charter and which have the effect of weakening the power, authority and prestige of the institution upon which the peace of the world depends.
Nations are beginning to take a definite attitude about these matters that are brought before the assembly by the force of the unity of these small nations. They are contending that they are not bound by assembly decisions.
France refused to attend meetings of the assembly when the Tunisian matter was before it. South Africa has declared that under no circumstances will she in any way be bound by the decision of the assembly in connection with apartheid, nor will she recognize any commission set up by the United Nations to be sent to investigate the problem.
Mr. Speaker, whenever the nations within the United Nations refuse to recognize the authority of the acts or decisions of the
External Affairs
assembly, a destructive influence follows that will literally weaken the institution itself.
There is another effect. The bringing up of these problems of colonialism and nationalism have the effect of providing the U.S.S.R. and its puppets with a trumpet stand for world-wide propaganda designed to separate, designed to unnerve the determination of the members of the United Nations, to arouse antagonism and create sores of hatred all over the world. When the question of revision of the charter is discussed, these are some of the matters that deserve consideration.
I could go on and refer to various other matters but on this occasion I am not going to do so. What I have in mind is simply that in the revision if it is at all possible these influences and tendencies that are causing fissures to appear in the structure of the United Nations must be removed; otherwise the United Nations, with a very proud record to date in the settlement of international disputes by bringing together nations that are in disagreement and by affording opportunity for negotiation, will be weakened in its power for good and will lose much of the prestige it now possesses.
As I listened to the delegates of these various members of the United Nations I thought of the changed world that we are passing through. Colonialism is over; nationalism is on the march everywhere in the world. Above everything else members of the coloured races are demanding that we of the democratic nations no longer practise discrimination against them. How few realize that in the commonwealth five out of every six are of a coloured race. The commonwealth permits of this because of justice and the practice of non-discrimination. The United Nations with its great crusade on behalf of the preservation of peace will succeed if communism is denied its mission of aggression everywhere in the world.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this. The United Nations must be supported as never before. Undermining it by criticism that is unfounded will destroy that only agency that can preserve peace. Human freedoms everywhere must be upheld and maintained. Discrimination against colour or race, wherever it exists, must be ended, and the great agencies of the United Nations that would help the unfortunate everywhere in the world must be supported. Poverty, if not banished, is a fertile field for the incubation of communism.
While these ideals are being achieved we must, at all costs, regardless of where we

External Affairs
sit in this house, uphold whatever government is in power in maintaining our defences and in assuring unity between the various nations within the United Nations, without which the future of mankind will be dark and fearful.


Mr. G. M. Murray (Cariboo):: It is a matter of pride to all Canadians that our representation at the United Nations has been of such an able and outstanding character. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is a model of patience, and I think that in dealing with the philosophers from Asia and Europe he has been able to remain calm and not lose patience when interpreting the wish of the Canadian people for peace in the world-not at any cost, but that certainly is our great objective. The world will long remember the work of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) of this country and his able minister of external affairs in dealing with international problems at a critical time in the history of the world.
It is fitting that I should have a few words to say here this afternoon, because the riding which I represent is closer in air miles to the scene of conflict than possibly any other riding in Canada. We see airplanes leaving Fort Nelson and other airports daily. We realize we are only a matter of hours from the shores of Asia. In British Columbia we realize that we are in a great era of Pacific development. The Pacific ocean means more to us than it does to Canadians who are farther inland. We are more deeply touched by the news which comes to us from time to time from across the Pacific.
I am one of those who believe that in international affairs we must do a good job of the work at home. I feel there are certain things that we can do in the northwest which would be of great military advantage, and would also be of advantage to the civilan population of this dominion. I believe that the extension of highways and railways into these fertile valleys is one such thing. I believe that the placing of new populations in these valleys on the northwestern frontier of this Canada of ours would make a contribution to the military defence of this continent.
North of Edmonton at the present time there is a sort of Maginot line because of the lack of adequate transportation. In the event of an attack upon this continent we would be sadly handicapped because of the lack of railway communication with the territory of Alaska, which is the great defence perimeter on this North American continent. In saying that I am only repeating what I have said before in this house, and repeating the words of outstanding military men, particularly in the United States. I believe that

if the record were examined you would find that General Eisenhower himself, prior to taking over his political responsibilities in the United States, was one of those who advocated the construction of a railway to Alaska for the defence of this continent.
I say, therefore, that one way, and not too expensive a way, of helping out today would be to move people into these valleys. We have heard of the catastrophe in Holland. It is unfortunate that a disaster of that kind should occur before we become impressed with our opportunity and also the need of putting people from these congested countries into the vacant valleys in the northwestern part of this land.
So far as the Korean situation is concerned, I may say that I have listened carefully to the speeches and the various opinions that have been expressed. I was bound to look up a little verse written by James Russell Lowell about a hundred years ago in the Bigelow Papers, which pretty well sums up what a lot of statesmen and public men are saying today about Korea. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote this verse:
Ez for war, I go agin it,-[DOT]
I mean to say, I kind o' du,
Thet is, I mean, that bein' in it,
The best way was to see it thru;
Not but whut abstract war is horrid I sign to that with all my heart,-
But cilyzation does get forrid,-
Sometimes upon a powder cart.
Korea has been a school for the training of warriors. There is no doubt about that. I often wonder if some of our Chinese friends are not obtaining education in the arts of modern war at the expense of some of the western nations. I am afraid that the nationalist army, when it is released and allowed to leave Formosa for the mainland of China, will simply melt into the great Chinese army.
I do not set myself up as an expert on these matters, but having had dealings with the Chinese, I see a danger in the acceptance of the opinion of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) that we should blockade the Chinese coast. I think the proposition of blockading the Chinese coast is something that we should not consider at this time. I believe that the containment of the war in Korea has been a tremendous achievement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: Order. It being five o'clock, the house must proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. Ill, to incorporate the Mercantile Bank of Canada- Mr. Macnaughton-Mr. Robinson in the chair.
Sections 1 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
On the preamble.
Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I do not
think it is on the record, but I believe this bill has been reported by the banking and commerce committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is correct.


William Alfred Robinson: This bill has been reported by the committee on banking and commerce.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Bill reported.
Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: the third reading of the bill.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, this is the first new bank charter which has been granted for some time by parliament, and perhaps it is appropriate that as the minister responsible for the supervision of the Canadian banking system I should say just a word before third reading is given.
We have a banking system in Canada of which I think all Canadians can be justifiably proud. I feel sure that I am voicing the views of most if not all members of the house when I say that the granting of a charter to this new bank does not imply any criticism of our existing banking facilities. The granting of bank charters is the particular responsibility of parliament. I am satisfied that the other place and the committee of the Commons have considered fully the purposes for which this bank is to be created and are satisfied that it will add to rather than subtract from the banking services of Canada.
I am now voicing my personal views, but I think parliament should consider each case in which application is made for a charter for a new bank on its merits, and should decide whether or not the proposed institution is one which will serve the interests of the Canadian public. I take it for granted that in this case parliament is satisfied that this new institution will serve such interests. While this is a private bill and the government as such should not take a position one way or the other, I think most of us will be gratified that the new institution being created is sponsored by citizens of a country with which Canada has had long and most friendly relations.
Mercantile Bank of Canada


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, the point with which the minister has dealt, namely, the basis on which the incorporation of new banks should be considered, was discussed in the committee. I think those who were present there will welcome what the minister has said on that point.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson):: The
business under private and public bills having been concluded, the house will revert to the business under consideration at five o'clock.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That items Nos. 85 to 104 inclusive of the main estimates. 1953-54, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
George Matheson Murray: Mr. Speaker, we Canadians have the opportunity to establish ourselves in the hearts of the countries of Asia, and this is well illustrated by the Colombo plan. We are a young country and our hands are clean so far as international politics are concerned. We have done nothing in China other than help the Chinese, and so it is in all the countries of Asia.
The efforts of the Christian missions of Canada in Asia makes the brightest chapter in the history of that ancient continent. In Formosa, of which we have heard so much today, the pioneer missionary during the last century was a Canadian from the county of Oxford, Dr. G. L. MacKay. He built and equipped a college there, which he called Oxford College after the county of Oxford, to train medical men, nurses and others to minister to the health and welfare of those people. He was one of the many Canadians who have operated in the mission field in the Far East.
I suggest to men who are wealthier than I that they consider endowing universities in Canada so that studies by Asiatic pupils in Canada may be extended. Funds might also be set aside to make it possible for Canadian young men and women to visit Asiatic lands and study at first hand the languages and customs, conditions and cultures of those peoples. It is not to the credit of Canada that we had to leave the task of visiting Asia and going about among the

External Affairs
people there in 1952 to such men as a certain communist leader from Toronto. I feel that those who have a positive contribution to make, such as students, leaders, political personalities and others, might well forgo the field of Europe for a while and make a close study of conditions on the other side of the Pacific.
What has happened in the Far East is that the native people have learned too quickly from the white man. China has her broadcasting systems today and television is operating in Japan. Radio broadcasting has been operating in continental China for the last 30 years. China has a network of airfields. Her civilian aviation Was growing when world war II interfered. Chinese aviators are keen flyers, as many of you know. In the world of aviation they have proved their great ability.
China has been steadily developing her industries and is increasing her manufactures of iron and steel products, textiles, chemicals and ships. Japan planned to be her manufacturing centre and to exploit her, but the Chinese are rapidly becoming skilled in all lines of manufacture. That country uses Russian machine guns, but makes a lot of her own. China needs mineral development, better roads, more docks and wharves, hydroelectric services and railways. It is said that there are 10,000 cities in China today that need public utilities, including hydroelectric service. She needs grain elevators, ships and locomotives.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: She got some ships.


George Matheson Murray: And she needs the friendly help of the nations of the rest of the world. Her position with regard to Russia is that of a nation in great extremity, and she is compelled to call upon Russia. If we were to blockade the ports of China we would weld that country into the structure of the Soviet empire. She would be compelled to do that because by shutting her out from ocean trading we would force her to trade within her own country, which has 3,000 miles or more of frontier with Soviet Russia, just as we have a very large boundary line with the United States, If Canada were blockaded on the Atlantic and Pacific we would be compelled to turn to the nearest nation to make purchases and carry on our activities. Therefore if we were so rash as to blockade the ports of China we would undoubtedly contribute to an international situation which would not be cleared up in our time.

History itself shows the futility of trying to do anything about blockading the ports of China. Since 1842 Britain and her associates have had control of certain ports in China. They had extraterritorial rights in all the great cities. They had virtual control of all the trade that went into China from the Pacific ocean; yet at the end of it all we had the humiliating experience of being drummed out of Shanghai, Canton, Hanoi and other great ports and were forced to give way so that any effort at coercion or to rule by force along the coast of China I am afraid will not meet with any greater success in this century than it did in the last.
You who know the Chinese people realize that they are a people with a history reaching back 40 centuries or more. I have read a translation of a book on farming which referred to records of 40 centuries of farming in China. Arnold Toynbee, the historian, says that they will survive any war, any shock. He say that they are a spiritual people, and that if he could return to this earth a good many generations hence he would expect to find the Chinese still placidly going about their affairs. He also mentions one other nation that would probably survive over the next five hundred years, namely Canadians, and particularly the Canadians of the province of Quebec. But he is not so hopeful of other groups. He says the Chinese and the Canadians have their roots deep in the soil and they love their land. They have spiritual values which they have always placed far above mere material things.
I do not propose to go into a long digression upon that ancient empire, with its 500 million and more people, but I would like to take this opportunity to refer to the great work of William Lyon Mackenzie King, who as a young man was sent to Asia by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. It was wise Sir Wilfrid Laurier who dispatched Mr. King to Asia at the turn of the century and instructed him to do all he could to work with delegates of other countries towards the suppression of the international opium traffic. It was a mission crowned with success. The delegates met at Shanghai, Peking and Tokyo, and began an international movement to outlaw opium and the traffic in narcotic drugs of all kinds. In those days Mr. King, almost a beardless boy, who had a talent for observation and inquiry, was exposed, as I say, to the impact of the Far East. I should say his journey was of historic importance, because through the long years of his career we find him appearing and reappearing at the council tables of the nations where the affairs of Asia were s*/i-ously discussed.

The United States of America was never a member of the league of nations, but the records show that the U.S.A. supplied almost unlimited funds to assist the league of nations in stamping out the opium traffic, and here again we had Mr. King counselling the leaders of the world. It might well be said that the league of nations justified its existence by the work it carried out with respect to outlawing narcotic drugs, a work in which Russia, China, Japan and India co-operated to the full.
I was going to pay some attention to the trade opportunities which exist on the coast of British Columbia with respect to the development of the Chinese and other Pacific markets, but time does not permit. I would take this opportunity to pay a compliment to the new minister who has been appointed to Japan, an industrialist from the city of Victoria, a former minister of fisheries in this government. I am sure that in his position over there he will do a great deal toward the development of further trade relations between the countries of Asia, despite war and rumours of war, and the west coast of Canada.
The work of the United Nations in saving us from a world-wide conflagration is something we cannot praise too highly. When we think of that country over there with its vast population and its huge armies, we realize that the cost of the revolution which took place within the last ten or fifteen years, the cost of the operation in Korea today, is astounding. The cost of a day's operations there would build great modern hospitals, in half a dozen towns in China. The cost of our own United Nations troops would build an equal number of hospitals. The costs of a single day would clear away slums in that great country where millions of natives live in filth and squalor. It would irrigate thousands of acres of land in Asia, not now being cultivated, to feed their starving populations. It would build dams for hydroelectric development, the development of natural resources. The money used for war would, if turned to peaceful purposes, change the whole face of Asia.
I repeat that some of us feel that we are competent to advise on these new international things. Certainly when one judges by some of the speeches he has heard we have here certain men who have very radical ideas on what should be done. An old philosopher said that China is a rug, the rest of the world but a fringe of the rug. I remind you that China is bigger than Europe; that it has, as I have said, more than 3,000 miles of coast line.
If we were to blockade the ports of China we would also have to blockade the ports
External Affairs
of Siberia. What would be the point in blockading the ports of China if the great port of Vladivostok and other places in the north which lead into Soviet Russia were left open? It would take the United States, the Canadian and the British navies combined to enforce the blockade. As I say, we would back Chinese trade into the interior and force them to get in deeper with Russia, in closer harmony with Russia, whose boundary for more than 3,000 miles is common with that of China. A blockade would mean all-out war, and I would object to sending boys from the Peace river to travel over to China to engage in such a war, to take them from peaceful occupations and throw them into the holocaust of an all-out war on the continent of Asia.
There must be some other way, Mr. Speaker, and I think that way is being found by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by the Prime Minister of this country and by the various leaders who have spoken in this debate, so that somehow, somewhere, we shall appeal to the hearts of these people and win them to the paths of peace.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of the C.C.F. group agree with those who have said that at this juncture in world affairs the views of the various groups in this house should be stated quite clearly. Hon. members will recognize that that was most certainly done on our behalf yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis).
Meantime, however, there have been expressions of views by other members and other groups in the house which make it seem necessary to us to give at least some restatement of the definite position taken on our behalf yesterday. In that connection let me say that we find ourselves in agreement with a good deal of what has just been said by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. I shall come in a moment or two to a discussion of some of the points on which he has spoken.
We feel that our fundamental aim in Canadian foreign policy at this time should be to end and not to extend the war in Asia. It is because of that fundamental conviction that we have taken our stand with respect to a number of specific matters.
In our view there is no point in trying to oversimplify the case as some hon. members have done during the course of this debate. From a debating standpoint it may be easy to say, as some members have said, that the west should deal with this situation in the same way the communists are dealing with it. It is very easy to say, as some members are saying, that if we do not blockade the

External Affairs
China coast, that means we are permitting materials of war to reach that country to be used against our troops fighting in Korea. It is very easy to say that because the other side is doing so-and-so it is perfectly logical and justifiable for us to follow the same course.
As I have already indicated, you cannot oversimplify the international situation in that way. There are risks either way. One has to weigh the risks. One has to determine what is the basic aim. And in our view- and we believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) agrees with us in this-the basic aim at the present time should be to end and not to extend the war in Asia. Through all of this we must make sure that our stand is firmly on the side of freedom; but let us not go along with the kind of mistakes that might involve us in the holocaust of a third world war, and the end of freedom itself.
It is because of that basic belief that it should be our aim at the present time to see the end rather than the extension of the war in Korea, that we are critical of the stand taken by the new administration in the United States. We refer in particular to the order given by President Eisenhower to change the order with respect to the operations of the seventh fleet between Formosa and the mainland of China. And, as I shall show in a few moments, we feel that we should be deeply concerned, lest that first item in the new United States foreign policy in the Par East be followed by other items which could lead us down the path to a third world war.
As I have already said, we believe that the government, indeed the Secretary of State for External Affairs, shares our views in this connection, despite some of the things said in this debate and despite editorials such as the one that appeared a day or so ago in the Ottawa Journal. But our quarrel with the minister is that, though you can find in his speech of Wednesday and in his statement of a week ago yesterday the position we believe he takes, you have to hunt for it with a fine-tooth comb. We think he should take a lesson from the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray), who has just taken his seat, and express his views as well as the views of the government much more clearly than he has done thus far.
A week ago yesterday, as recorded at page 1639 of Hansard the minister did say-and he put it a little more strongly then than he did in his speech on Wednesday-
With respect to the position of the Canadian government, while we remain resolved to carry out our United Nations obligations in Korea, we do not 
think that the defence of Formosa, which has not been assumed by the United Nations, should be confused with the defence of Korea, which has.
That, we suggest, is an implied criticism of the action of President Eisenhower, for that action in our view does confuse the defence of Formosa-indeed it confuses the whole question of the Chinese civil war- with the defence of South Korea, which is our chief concern in that part of the Far East at the present time.
Despite that statement on February 5 which some of us thought might be a prelude to a stronger statement when he made his more extended remarks in the course of this debate, when that time arrived the minister used even more cryptic language. Nevertheless, while I am critical of the minister for not making his statement clearer and more definite, at the same time I give him credit for having said what he did say, and for holding the views which these sentences imply. So I should like to put them on the record again, as they appear in Hansard of February 11 at page 1852. This is what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on that occasion:
As I said a few moments ago the most recent attempt at the United Nations general assembly to end the war in Korea has failed. But the effort to that end must not stop, and I am sure it will not stop. The guiding principle of Canadian policy in Korea is to continue to do everything possible to limit the present hostilities to the Korean peninsula, and to take advantage of any opportunity for an early settlement of these hostilities by peaceful negotiation. It follows from this that our general attitude in the United Nations general assembly, as elsewhere, is to support proposals designed to facilitate an armistice agreement, and to oppose proposals which, in our judgment, would impede such an armistice.
As I have already said, we agree with that statement. We agree with what is implied; but we feel-and in a moment or so I shall develop our reasons for feeling this way- that the minister should have said it much more openly, and that he should have put it in the forefront of his speech, rather than bury it in the middle, as he did.
Then after another paragraph he said this:
We consider also that the purpose of the United Nations in Korea remains the defeat of aggression, there, and does not include intervention in the civil war in China. So long as Chinese troops act as aggressors in Korea they must be opposed and that aggression, if possible, defeated. This does not mean that we who oppose them, by so doing, are committed to the overthrow by force of the government now in effective control of the mainland of China. As we see it we are engaged not in a national war against communist China or in intervening in a Chinese civil war, but as a member of the United Nations in a police action against aggression.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that we agree with those sentiments. We feel that they

should be made to stand out, that the minister should have put them in more clear-cut language, and that his remarks on behalf of the Canadian people, for whom he speaks in matters of foreign policy, should have been directed clearly to our friend and neighbour, our ally, the great country to the south of us. The reason we are anxious that that be done, despite all the rules and practices of diplomacy, is that we very much fear that if this government, in the name of the Canadian people, offers no strong criticism of this first step that the new United States administration has taken, it will be that much more difficult to offer criticism of a second step. So we will go on down the line until we find ourselves involved in a succession of agreements to successive steps, the fourth or fifth one of which may be the step that leads us into the catastrophe of a third world war.
There is no doubt in my mind from what the minister has said that he disagrees with a policy the apparent aim of which is to take action with respect to something other than the Korean war, in this case the Chinese civil war. But despite the obvious opposition that the minister feels to what President Eisenhower has done, he covers that opposition by saying, as he did on an earlier occasion, that he trusts President Eisenhower's non-aggressive intentions. Well, I suggest that that is giving to President Eisenhower, and perhaps what is more important and more ominous, to those around him who help to shape United States foreign policy, the notion that if they take another step, a step such as the hon. member for Cariboo has just been objecting to-the proposal to blockade the China coast-or if they decide to bomb communist bases in Manchuria, somehow or other Canadians will still trust President Eisenhower's non-aggressive intentions. That will not be so, and therefore it seems to me that the time to speak out and say to our friends in the United States in friendly but firm terms that we disagree with the course upon which they are embarking is now, at the time of the very first step.
The positions of the various parties in the house on this question now seem to have been made clear. There have been doubts in the minds of some members as to where the government stood. I thought the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) was trying yesterday Ho pull the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) into bed with him, but I hope I have got him out of that bed by putting on Hansard the quotations I have just read from the minister's previous statements. It is clear-and the members of
External Affairs
these groups are here to correct me if I misinterpret them-that both the Progressive Conservative and the Social Credit parties support and go along with what they call the stiffening policy being adopted by the new administration at Washington. At least they are stating clearly where they stand, and that is the duty of each group in this house.


Gordon Graydon: I suppose Hansard will
really show our position exactly, will it not?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it will, and I think even the hon. member will admit that I am not misinterpreting his position when I say that he felt Canadians should not be alarmed at what had taken place in Washington, and that his general view was to go along with the new policy at Washington.


Gordon Graydon: I said I did not think you should get too worked up about it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At any rate the hon. member for Peel is admitting that he is not worked up about it, that he is not going to lodge any protest. I suggest if the people at Washington hear too much of that sort of thing and get the notion that in Canada there is any considerable body of opinion that is not worked up about what they are doing, it will be an encouragement to those around President Eisenhower helping him to shape foreign policy to suggest further steps which could be dangerous and a real menace to the peace of the world.


Gordon Graydon: The red Chinese may be listening to you, too.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What is
Washington's view?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend from Peel
is, I think, indulging in something that I referred to in the early part of my remarks, when I said that it is quite easy to oversimplify this whole business and say that because the other side is doing such and such we are justified in doing the same thing. But do we not have to calculate the risks both ways and reach a decision as to what is best for the world, what is best for mankind at this time? We feel very strongly-I have said it four or five times but I will say it again-that at the present time our aim should be to work for the end and not the extension of the war in Asia. We feel very strongly about what Washington has done with respect to Formosa, and about the wild statements that are being made by many of those in political life and many of those in the military services in the United States who are suggesting further steps which are designed to interfere in the

External Affairs
Chinese civil war and which in our view cannot but have the effect of extending the war in Asia.
I agree with the hon. member for Cariboo that if that happens there is no telling where it may go, and it is my view that we should express our opposition to moves in that direction not when it is too late, but now, at the very beginning of this change of policy.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Certainly.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Does the hon. member think the President has made any of these wild statements or has expressed the wild views to which he refers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No. I think I made it clear that the only statement or change of policy that I have attributed directly to President Eisenhower himself, in my remarks today, is the change with respect to the seventh fleet. I said that the other statements that were being made, suggesting the blockading of the China coast or the bombing of the bases in Manchuria, were coming from others in congress and from military leaders in various parts of the United States. Of necessity President Eisenhower must get advice, must have people around him to help formulate policy, and my fear is that if unchecked by the voice of people on this North American continent who are friendly to the United States they might go on down the path that can lead to the third world war that we all hope can be prevented.
I want to say that in our view it is not only in the Far East that we feel the new administration is making certain mistakes. We feel that this is also happening in respect of the situation in Europe. Consequently we believe that there too the voice of Canada should be heard, in friendly but firm terms, in order to help the United States administration get on a more hopeful and helpful pathway.
It has often been said that Canada's position in world affairs is to a large extent that of an interpreter between the United States and western Europe in particular, as well as between the United States and the countries that make up our commonwealth. There is no denying the fact of that situation, and it is one indeed of great importance. It is our view that at this particular juncture it is extremely important that we try to interpret to the United States, and in particular to the new administration at Washington, what we feel to be a proper understanding with respect to the situation in western Europe and also with respect to 
the commonwealth of nations to which we belong. In that connection it does seem to us that the new administration, through its secretary of state, Mr. Dulles, is showing a lack of understanding of the situation in western Europe. That lack of understanding, I submit, has been portrayed by some of the statements Mr. Dulles made both before his recent trip to Europe and while he was over there, not to mention some of the statements he has made since he came back.
Hon. members are generally familiar with the statement that Mr. Dulles made late in January over television, the full text of which was printed in the New York Times of Wednesday, January 28, 1953. I refer in particular to this paragraph:
The United States has made a big investment in western Europe on the theory that there could be unity there. Of the $40 billion which we have sent abroad since the end of the second world war, almost $30 billion have gone into western Europe. If however, there were no chance, and that I just refuse to believe, but if it appeared there were no chance of getting effective unity, and if in particular France, Germany and England-
Perhaps I might be permitted to pause here and say, along with others who have quoted this, that I suppose Mr. Dulles meant the United Kingdom.
-should go their separate ways then certainly it would be necessary to give a little rethinking to America's own foreign policy in relation to western Europe.
We have assumed for the last number of years that the United States was in with the countries of western Europe in the terms of a partnership. We have recognized that the role of the United Stateis has had to be that of one with greater wealth to share in such a way as to assist some of the other members of that partnership. Still, we have thought of it as a partnership, and it seems to me that we owe a considerable debt of gratitude to people like Roosevelt and Truman for their part in helping to bring an end to the isolationist sentiment that was common in the United States for so long.
Having mentioned the names of those two former presidents of the United States, I must say that I was shocked yesterday and deeply disappointed to hear the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) refer to the late Franklin Roosevelt and to Mr. Harry Truman, now of Independence, Missouri, as the betrayers of humanity, or the betrayers of mankind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I take it, from the approval with which my remarks in that connection are now greeted, that this house generally does not share that view at all.

I was on the point of saying that it was through what those two men did, along with their other contributions to the good of mankind, that the United States did seem to get pulled out of its isolationist approach, and its people in our view seemed to become partners in the common effort to find a means to get away from war, in the hope that we might yet build a world of peace and human accord.
When one member of that partnership, even if it is the member that has had to shell out dollars-and do not forget that some of the other members shelled out something more precious than dollars-starts to threaten other members, threatening to withdraw its dollars and its support unless other members follow a course dictated by that partner, then the situation is, I would suggest, fraught with real difficulty.
My feeling about this matter is not that we should fly off the handle and holler about it; nevertheless we should speak pretty plainly out of the role we occupy as an interpreter between the United States on the one hand, and Britain and the commonwealth on the other. As we play that role of interpreter we should try to get our friends in Washington to see the difficulties that will flow from their following that sort of course.
As hon. members know, after making this statement on television which I have just quoted, Mr. Dulles went over to Europe and travelled around. He visited a number of the countries there and it appears from quite a few press reports that he gave what amounted to an ultimatum, namely that the countries of western Europe should get together and achieve unity along the pattern in the mind of the United States within seventy-five days, or else. For example, here is a story as it appeared in a dispatch by Raymond Daniell, dated February 4, to the New York Times which appeared in that paper on February 5:
According to foreign diplomats the line that Mr. Dulles has taken everywhere on his European trip is that Congress has reached the limit of its patience and wants action . . .
Later on he said:
Unless there is action on the part of European legislators or a definite promise of it within 75 days he will find it very difficult to convince Congress that further appropriations should be made for Europe's defence.
As I say, there are a number of news dispatches on that point but they are all in the same vein and it appears that since Mr. Dulles returned to this continent, even in a speech made last night, he is still expressing the view of the United States that Europe must unite, or else. He put a little different
External Affairs
twist on it last night because, if my memory serves me correctly from a reading of the papers this morning, he said that unless Europe were to unite soon nothing the United States could do could save that part of the world.
Now, when you hear things like that, with the background of the opposition that was expressed by some of the leading Republicans to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and when you remember the statement of Senator Robert Taft that this would be a case of rearming western Europe at American expense, one sees in the statements of Mr. Dulles what may well be an attempt to condition the American people to the idea of lessening the responsibility of the United States for the defence of freedom in the western part of Europe.
On the one hand we have this great neighbour of ours doing things in the Far East which we think are provocative, unnecessarily provocative, and in danger of bringing on a third world war. On the other hand in Europe you have this neutralist attitude, this pulling out, this saying to the countries of western Europe that unless you get together and do things the way we say they should be done, well, we just cannot sell the idea to the American people any longer.
Mr. Speaker, all of this beclouds the question as to what are the purposes and interests of the United States in western Europe. I believe that it will be far better if western Europe can unite and federate. There is no question but that a good deal of the trouble we have had across the years has been because of the division of that relatively small continent into so many different units. But for the United States to say to those countries that they must achieve unity in the European defence community or unity on whatever pattern the United States lays down, or be denied United States help is, I submit, the wrong way to go about it.
Several members in the debate have already referred to the significance of that train that crossed the boundary from Germany to France at one o'clock the other morning without having to stop for any customs inspection. Surely that six-nation Schuman plan is a step in the right direction, something for which we are all extremely grateful. It holds great promise for the future. But is not the situation this, that it is far better to encourage these countries to go on with this kind of thing rather than submit them to the kind of threat that Mr. Dulles has been handing out?
Now, what is our part in all this, Mr. Speaker? I come back again to the statement that is so often made, namely that we


[Stage Direction]
External Affairs
are in the position of being the interpreter between these two parts of the world. The United States is closer to us than it is to Europe. As a matter of fact, if I may inject a personal note, I see over there my good friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Fournier) and my good friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) both of whom, like myself, were born in the United States. We had the good sense and good fortune to come to this country as soon as we could, and I had the good fortune to be born of Canadian parents. At any rate, there are many of us in this country who have the kind of connection with the United States that makes our relationship that of friends who surely can speak to each other quite clearly and plainly.
I contend that our government's spokesman on foreign policy, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), should talk plainly to the United States, both publicly and privately if he has a chance to see Mr. Dulles, and try to interpret to him the position of these other parts of the world, Britain and western Europe, with which we in this country have such a close connection.
Part of this whole problem as it arises at the present time lies in the age-long suspicion, if I may call it that, that exists between Germany and France. Right now there is a desire in many quarters that the European defence community be completely ratified. Hon. members know that in these countries, particularly in Germany and France, a great many reservations are being made and there are a great many stumbling blocks to the possibility of complete ratification of the protocol between the European defence community and NATO. As a matter of fact, as one looks over the reservations of each of these countries-they are some ten or twelve in number for one and six or seven for the other-one cannot help but sympathize with some of these reservations. I think the position of these countries should be interpreted to the United States. They should be told, in the meantime, not to go around handing out these 75-day threats, and supposing that as a result of that kind of threat immediate action will be taken.
As a matter of fact, the ominous feature of this whole business is that at the present time the picture in regard to western European unity is not as bright as it was before Mr. Dulles started making these television pronouncements and these threats in various parts of the world. It is not my privilege to talk to Mr. Dulles, but it may be the privilege of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Certainly when he speaks in
fMr. Knowles.]
this house on foreign policy he speaks even more than the rest of us for Canada. I think he should speak plainly as a Canadian friend to our United States friends on this whole question.
There is something else in what Mr. Dulles has been saying. I refer to that passage where he mentioned England and where we presumed he meant the United Kingdom. He objected to that country going its own way, rather than doing the bidding of the United States. There is something there that it seems to me Mr. Dulles and others do not fully appreciate, and that is the peculiar relationship between Britain and the countries of the commonwealth. That is one of the problems that Britain faces in tying up with the proposed military set-up on the continent of Europe. The United Kingdom forever has to keep in mind its relations with the commonwealth countries, particularly the Asian members of the commonwealth.
I suggest that even if Britain did not want to remember that connection for her own sake, we want her to remember the connection with the Asian members of the commonwealth for the sake of the peace of the world as a whole. In my view it is one of the fortunate elements in the picture at the present time, in view of the danger of conflict between the east and the west, conflict on a racial or a colour basis, that wo have this association of nations, free and voluntary as it is, known as the commonwealth, including the great countries of India, Pakistan and Ceylon, along with the rest of us in this world-wide association. One wonders whether the importance of the commonwealth in holding our world together is fully appreciated by the people in Washington.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I see that it is just about six o'clock. Although I have a few more minutes remaining I shall not use them. I am prepared to conclude my remarks at this time. I hope that, like my colleague the member for Vancouver East, I have made it clear that we believe Canada should stand very clearly on the side of freedom. We believe also that the facts of the situation require that we assess the risks involved in going one way or the other, that we calculate the risks that confront us at the present time. We believe that, having done that, we must do our best to avoid the pursuit of any policy that would lead to the extension rather than the ending of the war in Asia. We feel we must avoid any course that would break down the larger unity that has been built up in the North Atlantic

community and in western Europe, within the framework of the United Nations.
Because we take that position we feel that our voice should be one of strong and friendly advice to the United States. In other words, we have no quarrel with what the minister said in terms of foreign policy when you have read his speech closely enough to find it. The trouble is that the important points were buried in the middle of his speech and covered up with words that seemed to be chosen so that they would not be seen by the new administration in the United States. We think it should be said clearly to that country that we recognize the important part they are playing in the leadership of the free world. We recognize the importance of our friendly relations with them. But as my colleague said yesterday, we think we should not just be told what is being done; we should be consulted and in that consultation we should advise the administration at Washington that we believe no steps should be taken at this time that could lead to an extension of the war in Asia. Our immediate aim should be to bring to an end as soon as possible the present conflict in Korea. Having done that we should go on and do our best to pursue a course that will enable us to achieve permanent peace for all mankind.
Mr. Churchill:: May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the importance of foreign affairs to Canada is so great that I am venturing to participate in this debate. I think it is only by a full discussion that we can arrive at the desired unified policy.
We are engaged in what appears to be a very serious struggle with the forces of communism. So far that struggle has not become one of global war with the navies, armies and air fleets of the world locked in mortal combat. It is possible that it will not be extended to a world-wide war. The strategy of the communist powers appears to take the form of a long-term process of erosion, with force applied here and there on the perimeter and psychological warfare increasingly pressed throughout the world.
Russia, unified and controlled by a military oligarchy, in some respects has an advantage over the freedom-loving democracies whose military alliances are subject to all the stresses and strains that must be expected if 68108-123J
External Affairs
freedom to express opinions and to disagree is to be maintained; and without that freedom democracy would have no meaning.
With those thoughts in mind I suggest___
and I am merely restating what others have already put forward-that we base our policy upon the premise that communism constitutes an external and internal threat to the democratic nations of the world, that that threat may well continue for a very long time, and that it can be met only by preparedness and eternal vigilance.
We should recognize the fact that a serious and perhaps decisive war for freedom is being waged in Asia; that the democracies must be fully prepared to resist any communist threats in Europe and the Middle East, and that an all-out effort must be made to perfect our military defences so that neither surprise nor superior forces will achieve success against us.
In my opinion the first thing to do is to create a proper climate of opinion. We should drop the terms "cold war" and "police action". We should avoid being misled in the future by insincere suggestions of an armistice in Korea. We should recognize that there is no immediate possibility of terminating the Korean war. We should generally settle down to a determined long pull against the communist menace.
We are faced by a crafty and implacable enemy who now controls one-third of the earth surface and 800 million people; an enemy who is practically self-sufficient in all materials necessary for war except oil; an enemy who appears to be planning or plotting the destruction of the western democracies, and who desires domination of the world. In his speech of January 27, as printed in U.S. News and World Report of February 6, Mr. Dulles used these words:
-me tnreat is

 **	acuuus one. Jrresident
Eisenhower recently said this nation stands in greater peril than at any time in our history Any American who isn't awake to that fact is like a soldier who s asleep at his post. We must be awake, all of us awake, to that danger.
If the United States is in greater peril than at any time in its history, so is Canada- for our fortunes are inextricably linked 'with those of our neighbour to the south upon whose shoulders rests now the grievous weight of world leadership. Canadians must be just as awake to the peril as Americans-but if we continue to talk about the "cold war" and "police action", and use the term "cold peace" recently foisted upon a quiet, peaceful and unsuspecting public by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) if press reports are accurate, we shall certainly obscure the issue and run the risk of adopting an attitude of complacency.

External Affairs
Hon. members will recall the period in 1939, alter the fall of Poland, to May 1940. That period was dubbed by careless observers "the phony war", and a go-slow and complacent attitude was adopted. It was not until the cataclysm struck in May 1940, and again in December, 1941, that the world was awakened to the gravity of the situation. Let us not make the same mistake again.
We are obviously engaged in a major war in Asia. It is unfortunate that the war is not viewed in the proper light as a war on three fronts, Korea with the threat to Japan, Indo-China and Malaya with the threat to southeast Asia, the rice bowl of the Far East. The forces on both sides comprise at least three million armed men. Casualties have reached a large total. It is war on a very considerable scale, and far from being limited in scope, it shows every sign of increasing in intensity and of becoming spread more widely as the nationalist forces of Chiang Kai-shek once again enter the conflict.
During the past year and a half we have been misled by the armistice negotiations in Korea into thinking that that particular phase of the warfare in Asia could be brought to an end. Surely it is obvious now that the communist powers never had any sincere desire to bring to a conclusion the war in Korea. The armistice talks were used as a cover for an intensive build-up of the Chinese army and for an intensive program of fortification and consolidation. At the same time the psychological effect of the negotiations served the purpose of lulling the United Nations into a mood of complacency.
There is now a widespread feeling that a full-scale effort on the part of the United Nations might bring the war in Korea to an end. I might point out that there is some difference of opinion among experts with regard to that. Nevertheless there has been considerable talk about bringing to an end the war in Korea, as if that would end the struggle against communism.
I notice in the Citizen of February 10 an article commenting on the fact that General Van Fleet, recently retired as the commander of the army in Korea, says that a big drive now would meet with success. Another general, an acknowledged military expert, Lieutenant General Robert Eichelberger, writing in a magazine, I am not sure whether it is Time or U.S. News and World Report, suggests that the course in Korea cannot be settled by an all-out offensive, but that we have to settle down to a long struggle there and replace in so far as possible some of the United Nations forces with trained and

experienced South Korean troops. He suggests that simply driving to the waist of Korea is not going to be an easy operation, nor will it necessarily end the conflict. Those who have suggested making a drive to the waist of Korea have indicated that that would shorten the line by about half, from 150 odd miles to 70. They think it might be accomplished by suffering a casualty toll of about 50,000 men, but that would be better than to have the thing go on indefinitely, with casualties mounting month by month. But whether anyone is prepared at this stage to advocate such an all-out offensive is something open to question.
Canadian advice and counsel will be needed under these circumstances, and I hope that our people who have the opportunity to make their voices heard will point out some of the difficulties involved in any suggestion of a quick way to end the war in Korea. There is not only the question of the tremendous build-up of material required; there is the question of the training of the troops to take part, and there would be to some extent a frontal attack in addition to any airborne landing or any end runs by naval forces on the flanks; and the rotation system that is being followed by the United States army and by the Canadian brigade rather militates against building up quickly the forces capable of offensive action.
Even if an attempt were made to end the war in Korea, it does not follow that the war in Asia would be completed; for although our forces might be released from Korea, so also would the Chinese armies, unless they were destroyed. They would perhaps then be free to direct greater attention to IndoChina. Perhaps the pinning down of one million Chinese soldiers in Korea has saved southeast Asia from falling into the hands of the communists. If southeast Asia becomes a communist stronghold the whole Far Eastern and south Pacific area will be menaced.
During the past two and a half years the emphasis in our news reports has been on Korea. Malaya has been considered the concern only of the British and Indo-China as a colonial difficulty of the French. Well, consider in that connection the viewpoint of Geoffrey Crowther, editor of the London Economist. I should like to quote from an article that appeared in Look of December 16, 1952, in which he has this to say:
When it comes to comparing relative efforts, Americans tend to overlook what is happening in Malaya, and the French complain even more bitterly that they are given little credit for what they are doing in Indo-China. The British in Malaya and the French in Indo-China, equally with the Americans in Korea, are fighting communists of Chinese nationality, who draw their inspiration and

their weapons from Peking and Moscow. Korea, it is true, is a United Nations war-but only by the accident that the Russians were boycotting the UN when the fighting started and the security council was able to act. To the British and the French, this is a formal distinction but still not a real difference.
The reality is that all three western nations are fighting communism in the Far East, and if the burdens they are shouldering in doing so are pvt alongside their relative resources, the result is nc t as unequal as it can be made to appear by looking at Korea alone. Indeed, there is no doubt that, of the three, the heaviest strain falls on the French, whose contribution in Korea is the smallest.
Let us consider for a moment the effort that has been made in those three areas of conflict and the losses that have been suffered. In Korea it is estimated that United Nations forces number about 500,000, and enemy forces over a million. In Indo-China the French and Viet Namese have 400,000 under arms and their communist opponents about the same. In Malaya, the British and Malayans with 30,000 regular troops and 100,000 auxiliaries are opposed by communist guerrillas numbering about 5,000 and supported by thousands of communist sympathizers.
Casualties in Korea have been heavy; they have also been heavy in these other areas of conflict. United Nations estimates indicate that in Korea casualties on both sides have gone about as high as two million. Our own Canadian brigade in two years of service in Korea had a casualty list on January 31 of this year of 1,335. The cost of the Korean war to the United States is $7 billion a year. A million tons of supplies per month are consumed.
To call this a cold war or a police action is in my opinion to very seriously misuse the English language, and is psychologically unsound. It breeds complacency and indifference, with a resulting slackness in the field of production of military supplies.
Quite a number of examples could be given of apparent slackness in the production of military supplies, and various news reports indicate that munitions of war and military supplies of all kinds have been diverted from Europe to the Far East. That situation is not as good as it might be. The outstanding example, of course, has been the shortage of ammunition in Korea, which has been both acknowledged and denied from various sources.
I give this just as an example of what the attitude toward the Korean war may cause in connection with the vital matter of supplying munitions of war. I noticed that in January of this year Mr. Arthur Blakely, writing in the Winnipeg Tribune, drew attention to
External Affairs
certain developments during the Christmas recess in regard to the matter. I quote his words:
But there's been some interesting developments during the Christmas recess. They've occurred in Korea and in Washington. When President-elect Eisenhower visited Korea, he found-and was disturbed to find-that U.N. troops were handicapped by ... a shortage of ammunition.
He certainly didn't regard the situation which he found as one which could be regarded as perfectly normal under even "static" war conditions.
And then on February 6 the Montreal Star says this:
Canada has been called in to help remedy the shortage of ammunition for United Nations forces in Korea . . .
The shortage of ammunition in Korea, reported and denied repeatedly for months, has been said to have forced rationing among UN troops at the front, particularly in certain types and sizes of shells ...
President Eisenhower confirmed existence of the general shortage when he returned from his trip to Korea before taking office, promising a speedup in deliveries.
And in the Montreal Star of February 9 I find this article from Washington:
The army indicated yesterday it is making progress toward solving ammunition shortages in Korea.
And farther down:
However, army sources said the situation is unchanged from last December 19, when army officers at a Pentagon briefing revealed that President Eisenhower was dissatisfied with the amount of ammunition available in Korea.
The situation in so far as our own Canadian troops are concerned may be quite satisfactory. The over-all picture of munitions supplies in Korea, if these reports are accurate, obviously has not been satisfactory. I suggest that that slackening of effort in the supply of munitions is due to complacency which we should get rid of.
I have quoted from some sources in that connection. I should like now to draw the attention of hon. members to the comments of Mr. Willson Woodside, military critic for Saturday Night. For the last two years he has been drawing our attention to the threat posed by communist efforts in Indo-China. In the issue of February 7 he relates that struggle to the European scene and points out that the difficulties in completing the plans for the army of the European defence community extend from France's troubles in Indo-China.
Just a short quotation from Saturday Night of February 7:
For, although the European army crisis exploded in Paris, it originated in Indo-China. There, following Lenin's famous saying that the road to Paris and London lies through Peking and Calcutta, and the late Andre Zhdanov's exhortation, in founding the cominform in 1947, that the communists must take the capitalist states in the rear

External Affairs
In Southeast Asia, the Soviets have been bleeding French military power to death.
And he suggests that there we may find communist strategy, and the reason for our difficulties in the formation of the desired European defence army.
Another military commentator whose observations merit close attention is Major General Fuller, one of Great Britain's outstanding authorities on warfare. In an interview with U.S. News and World Report reprinted in Reader's Digest for January he says some things I should like to draw to the attention of the house. He was asked a series of questions, to which he gave the answers indicated in the following:
Q. General Fuller, what is your impression of the present European army?
A. As it stands it is pathetically unreal. It's just a paper army. If Russia should move now, there is no obstacle to her overrunning western Europe except the stubborn geography of the Pyrenees mountain range between France and Spain.
Q. Could the allied forces now in Europe fight an effective withdrawal action if Russia did strike?
A. No. It is anybody's estimate how much they could salvage in men and equipment. But our withdrawal would be disastrous psychologically. We must not wrongly assume that the next war will be like the last-a war of retreat, then liberation and finally unconditional surrender.
Q. Does that mean the military outlook in Europe is hopeless?
A. Not at all. The purpose of rearming is to force the enemy to negotiate on terms favourable to yourself.
And then the following:
Q. Do you look for a shooting war in Europe in the foreseeable future?
A. No. It was Lenin's idea "to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders delivery of the mortal blow easy." In his system, psychological took precedence over military. Today Russia's build-up has two purposes: First, to support her psychological war by a terror barrage, a standing threat to all who oppose it; second, to defend herself should her psychological offensive lead to actual war.
General Fuller has had a reputation for thirty years of competent criticism of military effort and is well worth paying attention to. There is another critic to whom almost every military leader during the last thirty years has paid attention, and that is Liddell Hart. In the February issue of the United Nations World he has an article which anyone who is interested in this problem should read with some care. Liddell Hart needs no words of praise from me because he has been praised by so many in the course of his lifetime. Of him Ivan Maisky, the former Soviet ambassador to London, said:
We regard Liddell Hart as the best military brain in England.
In this article Liddell Hart puts himself in the position of Russia's chief of staff and decides what advice he would give to Stalin if

he occupied that position. No man has played a greater part in directing military doctrine than Liddell Hart, and I drew the attention of the house to the credit given him by the German leaders in the last war for the instruction they had gained from his writings on armoured warfare. Putting himself in the position of Russia's chief of staff, he surveys the world scene from the Russian point of view and decides where he would advise Stalin to strike. It is interesting reading indeed, and if world domination is to result he puts the chief emphasis on Great Britain. I should like to quote briefly from what he says:
"In the first place", I would emphasize, "Russia must make sure that she can annihilate Britain quickly-not so much because of Britain's own power but because of her key position, just off the continent of Europe as a base for American counterattack, particularly with atomic bombs. Secondly, we must be able to see a good chance, an effective way, of paralyzing counteraction by the United States for a lengthy period. It will not be enough", I should say, "to overrun Europe and sweep the Americans out of it, unless we can ensure ample time for them to cool down, in a state of impotence, and come to the conclusion that there is more to lose than to gain by a prolonged and destructive effort to recover their hold on Europe."
Of course he elaborates on these two main objectives. It is interesting to note what he would suggest to Stalin with respect to the Far East if he were his chief of staff. He says:
In the Far East, I should use part of our fourth army, which is positioned near the Bering strait, for a raiding stroke against Alaska. That is not a suitable line for a major operation, but even a small stroke there would play on the fears of the Americans and Canadians, and ensure a disproportionate diversion of their forces to guard their own continent.
Finally he concludes with these words:
Nevertheless, I would not care to advise that an attack should be undertaken ... It would therefore be wiser to pursue our "camouflaged warfare" policy and strategy-what our opponents call "the cold war"-which shows many signs of continued and increasing success. As a Soviet soldier, I am profoundly conscious of the fundamental truth of Lenin's maxim, so masterfully applied by Stalin, that "the soundest strategy in war is to postpone operations until the moral disintegration of the enemy renders the mortal blow both possible and easy.
I suggest that Liddell Hart's appraisal of the military scene throughout the world is worth very careful study.
Summing up, what are the courses open to the western democracies? I think we have to pursue our policy of military preparedness. We have to do what we are doing, provide trained men and munitions. In the actual war zone, I think the proper policy is now being employed of training the Korean people themselves and the people in Malaya and Indo-China for service in the field so

they are able to protect their own countries. There is nothing new in that policy because for many years the British and French have trained troops of nations which have been under their control; and if it is pursued the number of United States, British, Canadian and other United Nations forces might reasonably be reduced or might be held in reserve to bolster the homeland forces fighting the enemy. That, plus naval and air support, might be the answer.
In addition, we can supply specialized services from our advanced knowledge of mechanized and scientific warfare. Take the example of South Korea again. It has a population of 20 to 23 million people. They now have 14 divisions trained to operate against the enemy, and could have up to 20. With 20 they might successfully conduct their defensive war against the pressure of the communist forces. In Indo-China similar steps are being taken to train the soldiers of the Viet Nam, and also in Malaya.
In the third place, I think we have to continue our efforts to reach a peaceful settlement. I am not suggesting that such efforts should not be carried on. I have no intention of appearing to be an alarmist. Looking at this problem in an objective manner, I think we are facing the application of force by the communist powers in some parts of the world, and we must attempt to arrive at a peaceful settlement in so far as we can. I hope that a peaceful settlement may be achieved. I hope we will spare no effort to reach a peaceful settlement, but coupled with that I think must go the military preparedness that I have mentioned.
Then, if we follow General Fuller, we must emphasize psychological warfare. General Fuller suggests that that is a part of the communist threat to the world, and he thinks that we have not taken as active a part in that aspect of the conflict as we should. General Fuller was asked this question:
Is there any strictly military answer to communism?
This is his reply:
Certainly not. You must answer an idea with a better idea. In the last two wars, the winners came off almost as badly as the losers. In other words, the power to destroy is rapidly becoming the deterrent to war. Since mankind will continue to argue, the people of the world will more and more be restricted to a psychological battleground in order to avoid extermination.
In all of this what is Canada's part? I suggest that once again in the course of our history we have to become the arsenal of democracy. Our productive capacity and our skill are equal to the task. I think that our armed commitments can be kept on a limited
External Affairs
basis as at present. I agree with the proposal put forward last year by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) that our emphasis should be on air, and that in addition we should supply naval and army forces, but that we should be careful to keep our air fleets in being and not distribute them throughout the world. As far as our army commitments may be concerned, mobile armoured forces should be the answer in this present era, with airborne troops available for quick and useful service in times of emergency. In addition, if we can assist South Korea, IndoChina and Malaya by military teams to train their men, so much the better; and in conjunction with the people of those countries we can put forth a proper and full effort against the menace which appears to be threatening our very existence.
I will conclude, Mr. Speaker, by quoting from President Eisenhower's message to Congress. These are his words:
Our country has come through a painful period of trial and disillusionment since the victory of 1945. We anticipated a world of peace and cooperation. The calculated pressures of aggressive communism have forced us, instead, to live in a world of turmoil.
From this costly experience we have learned one clear lesson. We have learned that the free world cannot indefinitely remain in a posture of paralysed tension, leaving forever to the aggressor the choice of time and place and means to cause greatest hurt to us at least cost to himself.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that some rethinking of the world situation is required at the present time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has pointed out that it is a global problem, and it is on that global scale that we must look at it. I think if we call the war in Asia what it is a war-and consider that our troops in Europe and elsewhere are performing functions that were performed centuries ago by the Roman legions on the borders of that empire; and if we meet the menace of communism which tries to subvert democratic governments, and conduct as far as we are able a modern psychological warfare, then some of our problems in connection with the menace of communist tyranny may be lessened.


Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the fact that this has turned out to be a long debate, and I can assure you that I will try to shorten my remarks as much as possible or at least to speak as quickly as I can.
It seems evident from what has been said by those who have preceded me in this debate so far that there is very great importance attached by members in this house to the United Nations Organization. Indeed, I believe it is our only hope today for peaceful settlement of the difficulties of the world. I

External Affairs
think there is a primary consideration which must be kept in mind at all times, and it is that the existence of the United Nations is mainly dependent on the support of the people themselves in the other democracies of the world. It is of primary importance that the people themselves should fully understand what the United Nations Organization is and fully appreciate what it can do for them, so they will continue to give it their full support.
As we all know, the United Nations Organization is an association of nations and, as such, is an association of governments. In the case of democracies, governments can only go as far as the people in those countries will allow them to go. It follows that the United Nations can only succeed to the extent that the people in the various countries will allow them to go. So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is of primary importance that we all do our utmost to try to explain and give full appreciation to what this United Nations organization is, to the people in our various constituencies. By the same token I think it is our duty and I think it is my duty tonight and it is the reason that I rise in my place tonight, to answer unfounded criticisms, some of which have appeared in my constituency.
A few weeks ago the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) held a political meeting in my constituency. Naturally I do not know what transpired at the meeting, but when he departed to return to Ottawa he left in his wake an article which was published last week in the local newspaper of one community. It is a very damaging article, in my humble opinion. I think it is one so full of inaccuracies that it cannot go unchallenged, and that the record must be put straight. I refer to an article entitled "An honest appraisal of the United Nations Organization by E. G. Hansell, M.P." The article reads in part as follows:
Truth campaign
Not so long ago President Truman decided on a campaign of truth to expose the evils of communism and went so far as to set up a government agency for this purpose. But truth is not onesided. The searchlight of truth should also be turned upon ourselves, for it is we of the free nations of the UN who are in a pickle at the present time.
I might pause, Mr. Speaker, to wonder for a moment exactly what this means. Since there are only two sides in this issue, the democracies on one side and the communist states on the other, apparently it is we who are in the pickle. I would just refer the hon. member to the excellent speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), more particularly at page 1848 of 
Hansard of February 11 where, in talking about the Korean resolution before the United Nations, he summarized as follows:
Their summary rejection, and it was a summary rejection by the communists, of this great opportunity for peace exposes the hollowness and hypocrisy of the communist clamour for a cease-fire without an armistice . . .
Then I go on with the newspaper article:
-truth is still our weapon, but let us have the whole truth.
And here is the first line of his next paragraph:
The fact of the matter is that this United Nations is largely a socialist-communist organization.
Well, Mr. Speaker, one can only go to the history of the organization itself. As we well know the organization arose principally from the Atlantic charter, and I would like to quote a paragraph of that charter which was drawn up in August of 1941 by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill on a warship on the Atlantic-and there was no socialist-communist there. The paragraph reads:
-a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.
Then on January 1, 1942, representatives of 26 nations signed in Washington the declaration by the United Nations expressing support of the principle of the Atlantic charter and pledging their countries to go on fighting alongside each other until victory. So there is nothing socialist or communist in the first history of the organization.
Then we must look at the present membership of the organization. As all hon. members know there are at present 60 nations which are members of the organization. Of those there are 6 nations that can be termed communist and possibly half a dozen that can be termed socialist. So there are now some 48 nations out of 60 which can by no stretch of the imagination be called socialist-communist nations.
It is difficult to understand the ignorance of a member who could make a statement of that nature, that the United Nations Organization is a socialist and communist organization. Even if the implication there was that the U.S.S.R. wanted to tailor the United Nations to their own political pattern, certainly they have not had much success so far. One need but look at the pattern of the voting that has taken place from day to day in the United Nations assembly to see that the pattern is always the same. Take the vote on the Korean issue,

54 nations for and 5 against with one abstention. There was a majority of 49 nations against the 5 nations of the communist-socialist world. I know from personal experience when I was there that that is the pattern all through; inevitably that was the way the vote was recorded. It is, therefore, absolutely unexplainable to me how a member in this house could make a statement of that nature.
Then he goes on in the next sentence:
It is applauded by the internationalists, most of whom are socialists.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know exactly to whom the hon. member refers as "internationalists". I do know this, that the United Nations Organization-we have had an excellent demonstration in this	house-is
applauded by people of good will throughout the world who are seeking an international basis for justice, harmony and freedom. It is simply ridiculous, for instance, to call the government of Canada socialist, or the government of the United Kingdom. The most important nation in the United Nations and the one that is carrying the biggest load of all is the United States of America, and it is not socialist. It is difficult to understand how anyone could say that the association of these nations is applauded by internationalists. Then the next sentence is as follows:
It was conceived and brought into existence by those who visualized a world government and whose desire, in the process, was to bury national sovereignty-
I must pause on the first part of that sentence, "It was conceived". Possibly the hon. member can do some mind-reading, and is the only one who can tell us the secret aims of the founding fathers. But we do have the nature and purposes of the organization well set out in the charter itself. Anyone, particularly the hon. member who stated that this wias supposed to be an honest appraisal of the United Nations, should have taken the trouble to read the preamble of the charter before judging the organization he was going to appraise. We find the following in a paragraph of the preamble:
-to reaffirm faith in fundamental rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small-
World government, Mr. Speaker; that is exactly what the United Nations is not. It never was intended to be a world government, and that is clearly stated in the charter. All you have to do is turn to article 1, subsection 2, to find t/he following purpose set out:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples-
External Affairs
Then, turning to article 2, subsection 1, we find that the organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. In article 2 of the constitution we find set forth the manner in which sovereign rights shall be officially interpreted. We find there that "sovereign equality" was officially defined as meaning that states are juridically equal; that each state enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty; that the personality of the state is respected as well as its territorial integrity and political independence; that the state should, under international order, comply faithfully with its international duties and obligations.
One turns to section 7 to find the following:
Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter-
It is made quite clear in the charter to anyone who cares to read it even in cursory manner that the organization was never intended to be a world government.
Under the heading "Moscow conference" this press report runs something like this:
In 1943 Moscow was the setting for a conference of dignitaries, some of the big men of the earth, none other than the foreign ministers of those nations arrayed against Hitler.
It is not clear if the writer has commendation or condemnation for those who were against Hitler. I continue to quote:
At this conference the setting up of the United Nations Organization was initiated. "The old league of nations had failed. We must have something stronger", seemed to be their theme. It was recognized that in order to have power centralized in a world organization it would be necessary to solidify the already centralized international power of finance, and this would have to be made to synchronize if possible with the proposed United Nations Organization.
It is not quite clear what is meant by the international power of finance. It would seem to indicate that the member sees a dark plot by big bankers to centralize the financial powers of the world. Here again I should like to direct the attention of the house to this organization, the international monetary fund and the bank. The purpose of this organization is just the opposite. It is not a matter of centralizing, because again it is an association of nations and not of individuals. It takes power away from individuals and places it in the hands of nations and governments.
The purposes of the international monetary fund are clearly set forth in the charter of that organization as well. It is to promote international monetary co-operation through a permanent institution which provides machinery for consultation and collaboration

External Affairs
on international monetary problems; to facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade, and to contribute thereby to the promotion and maintenance of high levels of employment and real income and to the development of the productive resources of all members as primary objectives of economic policy; to promote exchange stability; to assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments in respect of current transactions between members and in the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions which hamper the growth of world trade; to give confidence to members by making the fund's resources available to them under adequate safeguards, and so on. So, instead of centralizing power, the purpose of this association of nations is to help the less favoured nations.
Then we go on to the next phrase in this report:
The next items on the agenda of the world socio-eommio planners were the Bretton Woods and Dumbarton Oaks conferences which resulted in setting up the international monetary fund and the world bank.
This is a new word which was coined, I presume, for the occasion: "socio-commio" planners. I imagine it means something like socialist communist planners. Here again it is not quite clear who are those planners, but we know that this was planned by the four big nations of the world.
Who were present when these arrangements were made? I am sure we will not find any socialists or communists outside of the one delegation. Representing China was Wellington Koo, who brought China into the league of nations, and Victor Hoo. Representing the United Kingdom was Lord Halifax and Sir Alexander Cadogan. Representing the United States was Edward Stettinius, James Dunn and Joseph Clark Agnew, the latter being a member of the board of review, atomic energy, of the United States. There again there is no indication or at least no substance to the allegation that these were socio-commio planners. It then goes on to say:
These aforementioned agreements were ratified by the parliaments of the signatory nations of the world. But let us pause for a moment and meditate on the startling fact that the executive secretary of the aforementioned conferences and a key figure in shaping this centralized and powerful world financial machinery was none other than Alger Hiss, since convicted by the Supreme Court of the United States as a communist agent. Is it conceivable that such a brain whose first loyalty was to Moscow would advise such machinery as would be contrary to the wishes of the Kremlin?
Reference is made there to a key figure. As all members well know, the bank and the fund were planned at the Bretton Woods

conference. There is no record that Hiss ever attended that conference, either as a member of the United States delegation or on the secretariat. The secretary general of that conference was Mr. Warren Kelchner, chief of the division of international conferences of the state department. There is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Alger Hiss attended that conference in any capacity whatsoever. He then goes on to say:
Some of Hiss's advisers were men who were already powerful figures in world finance. Among them was Henry Morgenthau, Jr., whose plan to restrict and demoralize the German economy for the benefit of American financiers has back-fired. There was also James P. Warburg who is an ardent advocate of world government. His friend, Eugene Meyer, another powerful banker, became the first head of the International Bank. His successor was John J. McCloy, who sat under the teaching of the marxist Felix Frankfurter of Harvard Law School.
For an hon. member to suggest seriously that Henry Morgenthau, Jr., secretary of the United States treasury and chairman of the United States delegation to Bretton Woods, the elected president of that conference, was an adviser to a middle-ranking civil servant at the conference is beyond all imagination. It is obvious that the writer has indulged in a little indirect anti-semitism. He refers to McCloy, and was attempting to link him up with what he termed was the marxist, Felix Frankfurter. It is quite obvious that this was an unadulterated smear on a very notable person, a justice of the United States supreme court. I cannot say the word I would like to use. Then he goes on:
The same traitor Alger Hiss was also executive secretary of the San Francisco conference and one of the brains behind the charter which moderately advocates a world police force which would whip into line such nations who dared to refuse to toe the line, which line would be determined by the world government boys.
The same traitor, Alger Hiss, is indicated as one of the brains behind the charter. As we all know, the executive secretary of the San Francisco charter was responsible for the administrative arrangements for the conference. There' is no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the statement that he was in any way the brains of the conference. I can imagine that his time must have been pretty well occupied in arranging the administrative details of such a large conference. Delegations from fifty nations attended that conference and drafted the charter.
From Canada there were Mr. Mackenzie King and the present Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). Then there were Mr. Wellington Koo; Mr. Bidault and Mr. Pleven from France; Mr. Fraser from New Zealand;

Field Marshal Smuts from South Africa; Mr. Eden, Mr. Attlee and Lord Halifax from the United Kingdom, and Mr. Stettinius, Mr. Hull and Senators Connally and Vandenberg from the United States. To suggest that all those men were simply hoodwinked by a member of the secretariat is just fantastic, to say the least. Then he goes on to say:
Oh, yes! And we mustn't forget another choice morsel. Mr. Stettinius was secretary of state of the United States at the time and played a big part in the San Francisco conference. His speeches at this conference were written by one Dalton Trumbo, who has since been exposed as a communist by the congressional committee on unAmerican activities.
The fact that a few United States civil servants in that department have been found unreliable does not justify a statement of that kind as applied to Mr. Stettinius. Frankly this type of slur is most dangerous. Then later on he says:
Why should It be necessary to make surrender of national sovereignty a condition of co-operation?
It is not necessary to surrender national sovereignty to make international co-operation possible. This is not required by the United Nations charter. However, there are instances where freely negotiated and accepted agreements contain terms that limit certain aspects of national sovereignty in the interest of obtaining effective co-operation. Almost any international treaty or agreement involves the voluntary limitation of the exercise of certain rights. The agreement or convention for the suppression of the slave trade or control of the international movement of narcotic drugs required each signatory to agree to a limitation in the exercise of certain rights of sovereignty. There is nobody in this house who would object to such conditions.
I see the clock is moving on, and I do not intend to go any farther with this argument. I think I have quoted enough to show how unreliable and dangerous literature of that nature can be when circulated among the people who go to these meetings, unaware of what is to happen and expecting the truth to be presented to them. I deplore the fact that any hon. member of this house should take advantage of the confidence that was shown in him to spread such propaganda. I repeat that the effectiveness of this vital organization depends in a most essential way on the support which it will receive from the people at large in the democracies.


Mr. Hansell:: I did not want to interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking, but perhaps I may ask him a question now. He has been quoting an article which I wrote some time ago, and in asking my question I am not denying that I wrote the article. I 68108-1241
External Affairs
should like to know the name of the newspaper in which it was reprinted, because I did not leave the article there.


René Jutras: The article was published in the local newspaper in the town of Proven-cher where the hon. member for Macleod held a meeting.


Ernest George Hansell: What is the name of the paper and of the town?


René Jutras: I will send the hon. member the name.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to a select committee, and it is the only opportunity hon. members have of speaking on the subject. I therefore wish to take advantage of the occasion to make a few remarks.
A very important event took place last year when the Democratic regime in the United States finished 20 years in office and General Eisenhower, who had been commander in chief of the allied forces in world war II and then had organized the forces in Europe under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, resigned his position, stood as a candidate and was elected.
It seemed to me that as soon as he announced he was going to run as a candidate, he was going to be elected. There was something about General Eisenhower that impressed the whole world as a man of destiny, a man of the hour. Like Washington, he was first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen.
Although we give credit to General Eisenhower for what he has accomplished up to the present time, I think it would be hard to agree with the leader of the Social Credit group (Mr. Low) in his condemnation of the two previous presidents. On reflection perhaps he will admit that these men made great contributions to the life of the United States and the life of the world, and must not be condemned because they made mistakes. Sometimes they made them because they received bad advice. It seems to me that the people of the United States and the people of the world owed a great deal to President Roosevelt in those early years when he came to the assistance of Great Britain.
Now that a new regime has taken office at Washington it is only to be expected that there will be some change in their policy. They have been criticizing the Democrats for many years for doing the wrong things, and it is therefore only natural that they should try out their own policy. But in regard to foreign affairs President Truman and President Roosevelt before him said

External Affairs
that they were following a bipartisan policy. An example of that was Mr. Dulles negotiating the treaty with Japan, and he is now secretary of state for General Eisenhower.
As a matter of fact there is very little change in the attitude of the present government towards the countries of Europe and the European defence community and that of the administration that preceded General Eisenhower. I hold in my hand several references which prove that there is very little change at all. President Eisenhower himself said that his policy towards our European allies, if it was not to be exactly new, was also going to be more positive. He said that maximum security against communist aggression required closer co-operation among the nations of western Europe, and that this unity could only be created from within. He bluntly warned:
Our allies would get help in the measure that they strive earnestly to do their full share of the common task.
That was General Eisenhower. But here is a statement by Senator Connally, leader of the Democratic party in the United States, which was made in July, 1952. He said, and I am quoting from a summary of the congressional proceedings in the United States for June and July, 1952:
The defence of Germany of course benefits the Germans themselves more directly than any other nation. The U.S.A. was willing to help any free people defend themselves against totalitarian aggression, but it was not willing or able to carry the whole burden of defending those who were not interested in their own self-defence. The Germans had pledged their best efforts; they had undertaken very heavy commitments and they deserved support.
I hold in my hand the Saturday Review of May 31, 1952. In it is a review of a book by Drew Middleton, the correspondent of the New York Times, called the "Defence of Europe". The review by Frank Altschul is headed: "Diplomacy vs. Resources", and he says:
As another example, Mr. Middleton echoes what we hear from many Europeans, that American impatience with the slow progress toward European integration is, to say the least, not well received. When this is expressed in the form of a threat that, unless the process is speeded up, we may discontinue economic and military assistance altogether, positive resentment is aroused.
I quote that, Mr. Speaker, to show that Mr. Dulles is not saying anything new; he is not announcing or pronouncing any new policy. That was said by the Truman government, and there was no great outcry from my friends to the left at that time.
In regard to Formosa, in the same volume of the congressional proceedings there is a

speech by Mr. J. C. Stennis, a Democratic member of the armed services committee, who said:
They should immediately intensify and extend to the division level the training of Chinese nationalist troops on Formosa, and give the highest priority to fully equipping them as early as possible for use on Formosa and in Korea. If communism was to be stopped in Asia, they must develop Asiatic manpower to do the job, and Formosa was the place to begin. First consideration should be given to the eventual use in Korea of the Chinese nationalist troops now on Formosa.
In Time for February 9, however, they say that a great change has taken place in the Formosan policy. The Truman doctrine contained the Chinese nationalists and kept them on Formosa and the United States had sent only a very small amount of equipment there. That is to be changed, and the present administration believe that greater assistance should be given to the armies of Chiang Kai-shek.
Before the hon. members to my left, the members of the C.C.F. party, spoke in this debate I knew what their attitude was going to be. They have frequently laid down the law in this house, especially in regard to China, and particularly in regard to Chiang Kai-shek. They are undoubtedly opposed to Chiang Kai-shek. They lose no opportunity to criticize him. They see no good in the man or in anybody who has been associated with him. But they do not condemn the Chinese communists. To any fair-minded man looking over the record of China for as long as he can look back, say for the past 25 years, it is obvious that during the regime of Chiang Kai-shek China was a very much healthier place for the majority of the people who were living there than it is at the present time.
Take the missionaries who have been persecuted, who have been arrested and imprisoned and punished for no crimes at all, and sometimes have suffered martyrdom. Some of them have been driven out of the country, and they have partially told the story of what went on. Is there anyone who will deny the truth of the statement that instead of bringing freedom, "the communist liberation army brought abject slavery, utter misery and terrifying fear".
I am referring to an article by Father Craig Strang of the St. Francis Xavier mission, Scarboro Bluffs, a Newfoundlander who was a prisoner in communist China for several years, and who has only recently been released and returned to his home. He has written an article entitled "Journey Into Freedom." He is not the only one who has come back from there telling terrible tales

of the cruelty that has taken place since the communist regime assumed power in China.
It was amusing to listen to the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Murray) today making the statement that the Chinese are great lovers of the land, and how they are going to outlast all the peoples of the earth-that is, they and the French Canadians. Well, I can believe that about the French Canadians, whom I very much admire. I could believe it, too, about the Chinese under a peaceful regime, but not under anything that has taken place since the communists took over. True, the Chinese are lovers of the land. They are peasants, and like peasants everywhere they love the land. But the communists are going to do in China what they did in Russia. They will take the land from the Chinese and divide it into big plots, and in that event the Chinese will just be labourers with no interest in that land. The produce from the land will go principally to the state. So really my hon. friend has not appreciated what has taken place in China.
But to refer back to the article by Father Strang, he tells how the communist army came into Lishui, where he was stationed. They borrowed the furniture and vehicles, although they never returned them. They borrowed the churches for meeting halls, and the priests were never allowed to return to those churches again. The saying of mass was forbidden, and all church services were prohibited. Priests and nuns were kept as prisoners for years, and had to live on very small rations.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), acting leader of the C.C.F., is not here at the moment to hear what I have to say. Certainly my friends to my left overlook the policy of the communists. It was not the intention of the communists merely to win the war in Korea. That is only a trifling thing, so far as they are concerned, only a means to an end. Out beyond Korea there is a place called Japan, with 80 million people. That is the prize the Russians have in their minds, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) knows it. That is what they are aiming at. And if they once got hold of Japan it is worth all the rest of Asia to them, because of its tremendous industrial potential and the high intelligence and ability of the Japanese.
If they had control of Japan, as the Americans had, we would see a very different story today. The Americans went in there as peace-loving people to help Japan reorganize
External Affairs
on a democratic basis, and to let her be free and independent so that she might take a new place in the democratic world. If Russia had gone in there it would have been for only one purpose, to foster the idea of speedy world domination.
My hon. friends to my left are neglecting that fact. The communists in China are part of that scheme. Father Strang says that while he was waiting for his train in Hangchow there was a peace delegation going to Tibet. They were waving flags and Russian banners, and singing Chinese and Russian communist songs. And at every demonstration where pictures have been taken we see pictures of Stalin side by side with those of Mao Tse-tung. That man was trained in Moscow; Stalin was his best friend. He would not be where he is today but for Stalin. Chiang Kai-shek had driven him out of China, up into Sinkiang, a small corner of .China, where he had only a few thousand troops. The Russians helped him. They armed him with Japanese equipment and ammunition. They built up his people's army into an army of two million men, and helped him and backed him in every way to defeat Chiang Kai-shek.
Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) made reference to the assistance the Americans had given to Chiang Kai-shek. That is very questionable. I do not want to debate the subject now, but I have talked about it before. However, it is not true that Chiang Kai-shek had every assistance from the United States government. That government did not know where it was at the time, because it had so many spies in its midst, such men as Alger Hiss, to whom the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) referred. There were men of that kind in the state department, and discord in the United States government in regard to the aid that should be given to Chiang Kai-shek. But if some people in the United States government had had their way the communists would have gone to Formosa, and United States, United Kingdom and commonwealth interests would have been in greater jeopardy than they are today, because Chiang Kai-shek is still on Formosa. After all, his ideas are similar to ours.


An hon. Member:: No.


William Joseph Browne: Yes. You cannot condemn all the things Chiang Kai-shek has done, because he has done some good things. As I was about to say, he permitted Christian churches to function there; but they cannot function today in China. Perhaps my hon. friend does not

External Affairs
think that is good. He permitted missionaries to go through the country, and I think they did some good.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to whom I enjoy listening very much, because he is a fine speaker and forthright in his opinions, said today that we should speak plainly. Well, are we the only ones who are going to be allowed to speak plainly? Can Mr. Dulles speak plainly? Can he say what is in his mind? Is he to be extended the same privilege in that respect that is extended to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre? Perhaps the hon. member was referring to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because he was at great pains to say that the minister was not speaking plainly yesterday, or as plainly as he spoke a week ago when he referred to the deneutralization of Formosa.
Why should not Mr. Dulles speak out plainly? Consider the contribution the United States government has made to world peace and the rehabilitation of Europe. When we hear that Germany's production today is higher than it was in 1939, and when we hear that France's production is higher than it was in 1939, and that Italy is coming along, and that all those other countries are making headway, we must not forget that it was done through funds supplied by the United States. It was for that reason the increase in production was made possible.
It is very fortunate indeed for Europe that there was in the United States a government interested in the rehabilitation of those countries. And what was it done for? The workingman in the United States, the teacher, the professional man-everybody is making a contribution. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) reminds us here frequently that they pay higher income taxes over there because the exemptions are lower than they are in Canada. The people in that country are paying those heavy taxes to save the world.
I know, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must know, the valuable contributions we in Canada are getting from the United States. We can talk so boldly here in the House of Commons, but we would not talk half as boldly if we did not have the United States at our back. They are building big air bases in Newfoundland, at Goose Bay and in Greenland to protect us as well as themselves. We are getting the benefit of that. It is a wonderful thing that we are allies with them.
I should like the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to say who should decide in a coalition. President Eisenhower is elected and has to make an inaugural speech. What is he going to do? Is he going

to come over here to consult the Secretary of State for External Affairs about what his policy should be? What would the people who returned him to office say if anything of that kind happened?
That is not enough, mark you. Should he go to all the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and ask each one what he should do? Should he go to all the countries of the commonwealth to learn what he should do? No. He has laid down the policy his government is going to follow, and I think it is a good thing that we have a man with such experience in military matters, at the head of affairs in the United States today.
I know my friends on the left do not approve of military men in important positions, and I feel quite sure they do not approve of General Eisenhower. We have to remember that the government of Russia is following ideas for world domination developed by Lenin and Marx. This is a revolution which they want to spread over the whole world. They feel they have a messianic work to do. They want to conquer the whole wide world. Nobody else can live on the earth and have an idea except the Russians. Nobody is allowed to have any other ideas in countries dominated by Russia today. You cannot go and preach social credit in Poland or Czechoslovakia.


Mr. Wright:: Is my hon. friend trying to say that any member of this group agrees with Stalin or his internationalist policy? If so, I think he has not listened to the speeches we have made.


William Joseph Browne: I have not heard you say much against them.


Percy Ellis Wright: I do not know how anybody could say any more against them than the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Mac-Innis) did.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
agree altogether with what the hon. member is saying now. I know he has said a lot more against Chiang Kai-shek than he has against Mao Tse-tung.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. When he means the C.C.F. would he mind saying the C.C.F., because the Social Crediters are on his left, too. We certainly do not want to be put in the same category as the C.C.F.


William Joseph Browne: I do not
think anyone would associate the two parties.


An hon. Member:: Further left.


John Horne Blackmore: People reading Hansard do not know whom the hon. member means when he refers to his friends on the left.


William Joseph Browne: I shall remember that in future.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you very much.


William Joseph Browne: We had a
beautiful speech from the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette) about his trip. I am delighted to see that so many members on the government side of the house are getting these trips to foreign countries and are improving their knowledge as they are doing. It was a very interesting account. I was not here when he spoke, but I read his speech and it was very interesting. I am glad to know he is so optimistic about conditions in the Middle East, but I wonder what he has to say about the news in the press today that Soviet Russia has broken off diplomatic relations with Israel. What is his opinion on that? I am sorry he cannot give us the answer at this time.
However, I think we can point out that there is a feud between the Arab states and Israel. Which side are we on? Are we with the Arab states or are we with Israel? During the past month or so Soviet Russia has left no doubt where it stands because of its persecution of the Jews, even to the extent of arresting nine Jewish doctors in Russia and accusing them of having poisoned leaders of the Soviet government. Then there is the persecution of Jews in the satellite countries, and now we have the breaking of diplomatic relations. There is a feud between the Arab nations and Israel and Russia hopes to profit thereby and gain the support of the Moslem world.
I do not know where we are going to get support in the Moslem world. From the accounts I get the English do not seem to be popular there. They have to get out, and the Americans do not seem to be popular although they are there with the best of intentions. Spain, which has been despised as a nation, seems to get along very much better with them than anybody else, because a Spanish mission has just completed a tour of the Arab countries and has made agreements with them. I wish we could do the same.
Then there is the story of the persecution in China to which I referred, and of course in the remarks I was making I could not give anything like a lull representation of what has been going on over there. But I am sure we have all read the accounts of the terrible trials of our missionaries, the sisters and the priests who have gone from this country. That has been repeated in those
External Affairs
countries of Europe that have become Soviet satellites, in Poland, in Czechoslovakia, in Hungary, with Cardinal Mindszenty in jail. I suppose everybody received a copy of the Ensign today in which reference is made to a speech that the ambassador from Yugoslavia made in Vancouver, wherein he said there is perfect freedom of worship and religion in Yugoslavia. He was taken to task for this by Archbishop Duke of Vancouver. He replied to Archbishop Duke and said that the government of Yugoslavia was giving money to theological colleges in that country. I have here the Tablet, which is a Catholic paper published in London. The issues of January 24 and January 31 contain a letter which the bishops of Yugoslavia addressed to Tito, the president of that country, in September. In it they said amongst other things:
The freedom of conscience and religion to which the constitution . . . refers is in practice reduced to partial freedom of worship or . . . the freedom of religious rites. We say partial, because the freedom of worship is in some respects limited to such an extent as de facto means the negation of genuine religious freedom.
The churches are, it is true, still open, although some of them . . . have been used as storehouses for wheat or agricultural machinery. The monumental church of St. Joseph at Ljubljana has been transformed into a film studio, while the ancient Church of the Crusaders, also at Ljubljana a real gem of ecclesiastical art, was taken from the Catholics and simply, without consultation, giver to the Old-Catholic sect-which, incidentally, a1 Ljubljana, lacks almost any adherents.
Very many roadside crosses and paintings have been destroyed . . . The large and beautiful churcl of the Holy Redeemer at Rijeka was mined overnight and destroyed at the beginning of November 1949, although it stood in the very centre of the town. The Church of the Carmelite Sisters a Selo at Ljubljana was destroyed, and without anj reason the beautiful chapel Salita al Calvario, or the island of Krk, was demolished. . . . Manj public oratories . . . have been closed down bj force.
The record books of the bom, dead and marriee were taken away from the church authorities ever in 1946	. . . Processions are . . . forbidden . .
The freedom of preaching is also endangered . . . Priests are not allowed to give religiou instruction in schools, presbyteries and other eccle siastical premises. . . . Many churches are no allowed in any way to collect ecclesiastical alms . . . The arrest of the priests goes on. , . . There ar still in Yugoslav state prisons more than 20 priests . . .
Physical attacks on the priest are not rare. Dur ing the last seven years about 80 priests have beei killed by ambush . . . The state authorities . . ignore the church . . .
-wherever they can.
There is, finally, the very painful question of th official atheistic course in the schools and in th whole public life of . . .
*-the state.
Atheism is the religion of the regime . . . T these proofs of lack of religious freedom . . . mus be added the old ones, already stated in the memc randa of the hierarchy from former years. Amon

External Affairs
them Is to be mentioned the liquidation of the whole of the Catholic schools in the territory of the . . .
-state. Now, that is Yugoslavia. And its ambassador has been going around in Vancouver stating that there is full and complete freedom of religion and worship in that country. The Ensign in its editorial draws attention to this and also to the fact that the Polish diplomatic mission here in Ottawa has been circulating an attack upon a priest.
The Yugoslav ambassador is reported as having passed disparaging reports about Archbishop Stepinac. In this country where almost 50 per cent of the population is Catholic I think that sort of thing is very offensive, and that these gentlemen in the diplomatic fraternity should not be using language of that kind. Only tonight I read in the paper that the Polish government has decreed that no appointments or changes in posts of the hierarchy can be made without the consent of the state. The state's consent is necessary for the establishment, transformation or abolition of posts in the hierarchy as well as for any changes in the scope of their activities. Now, these men coming from satellite states of Russia where atheism is the official religion of the state-


Mr. Pearson:: May I ask a question? Is the hon. member suggesting that Yugoslavia is i Russian satellite state?


William Joseph Browne: No, it would De incorrect to say that. I know that Yugoslavia is no longer a satellite state but Poland s. Yugoslavia still has the same ideas about atheistic communism that Russia has, and I ;hink representations ought to be made by someone in the Department of External Affairs to those gentlemen to the effect that such conduct on their part is not desirable md should cease. Personally I want to pro-;est against the actions of these men in using anguage such as they do and casting reflec-;ions upon men whom we honour so highly.
Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion >f the remarks I had to make, but I wish to nake one reference to the fine speech we leard this evening from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). He irew attention once again to a recommenda-ion which has been frequently made, and in which Canada should have something to ay. It is the idea of training South Koreans, do not see why we should not invite some if the South Koreans to come to Canada for raining in some direction or other in order o take their position in the line. They rant to do so, they say. They have the men. he population of South Korea is greater han that of Canada, being some 20 million 
people. The United States government believes that in a year or two they can train sufficient men to take over the whole line. I believe that the bulk of the fighting at the present time is begin borne by the South Koreans, and I think the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) said that very same thing. I believe that, together with the United States, Canada should have something to do with the training of those men.
There has been a stalemate until now, and there was need for a new attitude toward the Korean war. I believe that what has been done by the United States government up to the present will have a good effect, and not the evil one which our nearest neighbours on the left feel it will have.


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I was one who had the privilege of attending the United Nations general assembly as a parliamentary observer, and I feel I should say a few words at this time.
It is a common practice at the present time to have parliamentary delegates from all parties attending and observing the proceedings of the United Nations. I believe that is a good and democratic practice. The British North America Act, drawn up as it was during the nineteenth century, did not anticipate such a world organization or parliament and therefore made no provision for Canadian representatives at such a forum.
I am sure that if it had, it would have set out in its terms a provision that our system of responsible government should be maintained and that the delegates represented on the various committees would be members of parliament of the party in power, directly responsible to the existing government.
It was the practice in the first few years of the United Nations to have representatives of the official opposition, I believe, act as representatives with a voice and a vote in the various committees. It is self-evident that this practice is contrary to our system and could lead to some difficulties by having our delegation perhaps committed to a course that would not be in conformity with the policy of the government. The more realistic practice of sending parliamentary observers to take part and assist in forming policy in the Canadian caucus is a correct one, I feel, and it should be continued. While not actually dictating policy, Her Majesty's loyal opposition is thereby given its rightful opportunity to present its views on foreign policy and to report to the House of Commons upon their return.
I am somewhat at a loss to understand why, with my limited capabilities, more particularly in the field of foreign relations, I

was chosen to attend the United Nations. I suspect that it was because the Prime Minister knows of my early associations and public life prior to coming here, when I was associated almost entirely with the cause of labour. The government, I am sure, realizes the important position which organized labour holds today in our democracy and in our foreign relations. As a group they far outnumber any other class. Labour stands to suffer most in the event of a third world war, with all its horrors and the possible destruction of our entire civilization.
I wish to confine my remarks, however, to a few general observations, and in particular perhaps to my impression of the department as gained by my close association with the personnel during my stay in New York. I feel that the personnel serving the department have been excellent. It is my candid opinion that there is no better diplomatic representation anywhere; and when one considers the weight of its influence and reflects that it comes from a nation of less than 15 million people, I feel that is something of which we may be justly proud. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was raised to the high and honourable position of president of the general assembly, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) succeeded him as leader of the Canadian delegation. His voice was heard with respect and admiration in all debates of importance. Indeed the Indian resolution designed to bring about a cease-fire in Korea was patterned on his statement in the general debate in the ad hoc committee on this particular question.
Further proof of the expertness of Canadian diplomacy can be gained, perhaps, by reading a quotation from the London Economist which sets out in clear terms the way I personally feel about our diplomatic staff and its leadership. The article reads:
If it is permissible to generalize about the diplomatic service of any country, it is probably true to say that the representatives of Canada exercise an influence and enjoy a prestige out of all reasonable proportion to the size of their country or the power which it can wield. One reason lies no doubt, in Canada's economic strength and future promise. Another lies in its peculiarly favourable position as a neighbour of the United States, sharing some of the influence yet exempt from all the suspicions which inevitably gather round the leader of a large alliance. But, when all this is said, a more important reason lies in the personal quality of the men themselves.
I have noted with no little satisfaction that recent press statements have suggested that the Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs may be offered the post of secretary general of the United Nations to replace Trygve Lie, whose resignation is now pending. Should the security council reach such a
External Affairs
decision, the United Nations would be taking a rather giant stride towards bringing about universal co-operation. The loss of such a statesman to the Canadian people would mean a considerable sacrifice, yet it would not be too high a price to pay in furthering the cause of world peace.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I would be inclined to feel that the criticism of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) last evening was not entirely justified. While we are now enjoying great prestige among world powers, I think it is somewhat unfair to say that if the rank and file of Canadian people feel that they should criticize some of the policies of the United States they are "yapping dogs continuously barking at everything the United States does". It is not quite fair, in my opinion, to go so far in our condemnation of the United States as did the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) in his address on February 12. On page 1881 of Hansard for that date we find the following:
But, Mr. Speaker, when the full history of these times is written, when all the facts have been brought to light, there will be many people who will say that the past two presidents of the United States have been the great betrayers of humanity.


Mr. Low:: Just read the rest of it.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, I shall read the rest of it:
To be charitable, as I ought to be, I will say that some of those decisions made at Yalta and Potsdam, some of the secret understandings and agreements that were had with Stalin . . .
I should like to remind the house that Right Hon. Winston Churchill was present at Yalta and Potsdam. Are these men, who led us to victory during the last great war, now to be called the betrayers of humanity?
I think, Mr. Speaker, that is going far beyond-


Solon Earl Low: I did not say that.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: -what should be expected from a Canadian representative in this House of Commons. I took the trouble of looking up in the dictionary the meaning of "betray" It means to deliver into the hands of the enemy by treachery or fraud; to seduce.
In the past this debate has been conducted on a very high plane, and I had hoped that it would continue on that high plane. I am sure that was the wish of everyone in the house, but when people go about delivering these veiled criticisms of great men, and when we hear them go out in the country and make speeches and write articles such as the one by the member for Macleod read in the house tonight by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jutras), then I am sure we can no longer expect this debate to remain on such a high plane.

Business of the house
I have made considerable preparation for this speech, and there are a number of other things with which I wish to deal, such as the policy Canada should follow today and some of the issues that are before the United Nations. Since it is now ten o'clock, I would move the adjournment of the debate.
On motion of Mr. Byrne the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Fournier (Hull):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall move to set up the special committee to examine into the operations of the government in the field of atomic energy; then the resolution of the Minister of Resources and Development respecting the amendment of the Yukon Act; Bill No. 48, respecting food, drugs, cosmetics and so

forth; Bill No. 110, establishing the historic sites and monuments board of Canada; Bill No. 109, to authorize grants of assistance to provinces for the conservation of water resources; Bill No. 46, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act. We may have time to consider Bills Nos. 38 and 39.


Gordon Graydon: Has the government any idea when we will go on with the debate on the motion to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the committee?


Alphonse Fournier: I would have to consult with my colleagues, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be absent for some time. I suppose he would like to listen to the interesting speeches of the other members of the house.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 16, 1953