1953-02-12

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I should like to lay on the table two copies im French and in English of order in council P.C. 174 of 1953, passed this morning, which provides that the Associate Minister of National Defence appointed under section 6A of the National Defence Act may in addition to the Minister of National Defence exercise and perform all the powers, duties and functions of the Minister of National Defence, unless and until the governor in council otherwise directs.
This order in council revokes order in council P.C. 4553 of November 24, 1952, whereby the Solicitor General was authorized to exercise jointly with the Minister of National Defence certain of the powers and iperform certain of the duties and functions provided under the defence act.
I table at the same time two copies of the order in council whereby the Hon. Ralph Campney was this morning appointed Associate Minister of National Defence.



QUESTIONS


GANDER AIRPORT


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: 1.	How many prefabricated houses are being constructed at Gander?
2.	Where were the materials purchased and what was the cost per unit?
3.	What is the estimated final cost per unit?


Mr. Winters:: With respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation:
1.	24.
2.	Prefabricated house packages from H. Newsum Sons and Company Limited, Lincoln, England, at $4,547.25 per unit f.o.b. Gander, Newfoundland.
On site work, i.e., foundations, plumbing, heating, erection, firm price contract to Eastern Woodworkers Limited, New Glasgow, N.S., at $7,954.73 per unit.
3.	$12,502 per unit.



CIVIL DEFENCE COURSES

Mr. Rooney:: How many persons from each province have taken civil defence courses at federal expense?


Mr. McCusker:: To December 31,	1952,	2,562 persons
attended civil defence training courses at federal expense as follows: British Columbia, 201; Alberta, 200; Saskatchewan, 81; Manitoba, 186; Ontario, 412; Quebec, 470; New Brunswick, 74; Nova Scotia, 120; Newfoundland, 21; Prince Edward Island, 15; federal employees, 58; armed services personnel, 24; R.C.M.P. personnel, 13; miscellaneous-from industry, etc., 25; total, 2,562.



DOMINION SEED LIENS

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Has the government given any consideration to the discharge or cancellation of outstanding dominion seed liens?
2.	If so, what decision has been arrived at?


Mr. Winters:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.



COUNTY HEALTH UNITS

Mr. Bradeite:: 1.	Has the department of health of Ontario requested any assistance from the national health grants for county health units?
2.	If so, how many new units have been established with federal assistance?
3.	How many units established prior to 1948 have been given assistance for extending their services?
4.	What is the total amount approved by the federal government for these purposes in the fiscal year 1952-53?


Mr. McCusker:: 1.	Yes.
2.	7.
3.	20.
4.	$434,235.37.



ASSISTANCE TO EMIGRANTS

Mr. Kickham:: 1.	What assistance is given by the Canadian government to emigrants coming to Canada from Britain, Ireland and the European countries for passage to Canada?

Questions
2.	What assistance, if any, is provided to establish them in rural and urban centres in Canada?
3.	What difference, if any, is accorded to emigrants from oriental countries?


Mr. Harris:: 1.	Interest free loans, to cover minimum ocean fare and inland transportation in Canada, are granted to immigrant workers who are eligible by virtue of their occupations and who are unable to defray the cost of their transportation to Canada from Britain, Ireland and certain European countries. These loans are available to the dependents of immigrants coming from the flooded areas of Britain, Belgium and Holland when the head of the family is eligible by virtue of his occupation.
2.	Immigrants have available the facilities of the settlement service of the immigration branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration, and of the national employment service, Department of Labour.
3.	Assisted passage loans are not granted to immigrants coming from oriental countries. They have available the assistance referred to in part 2 above.



FISH VALUES, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. Kickham:: What is the cash value of all species of fish landed in each county of Prince Edward Island, during the years 1951 and 1952?


Mr. MacNaughi:: 



VALUE1 OF FISH LANDINGS, BY SPECIES AND BY COUNTIES, P.E.I.

[Stage Direction]
Species	Prince County	Queens County	Kings County	Totals	$	$	$Cod	25,352	27,916	44,210	97,4781,512	12,002	13,514Hake	4,441	14,460	23,226	42,127Flatfish	391	89	3,595	4,075Herring	47,551	8,390	10,946	66,887Mackerel	19,291	16,288	4,215	39,794Smelts	44,934	37,944	13,484	96,362Other fish	892	2,452	2,195	5,539Lobsters	689,680	310,300	700,774	1,700,75455	1 323	1,378Clams soft shelled	3,227	3,414	4,813	11,454Quahaugs	177	820	4,505	5,502Oysters	56,062	14,480	672	71,2141,100	3,680	4,780Fish livers	2,012	1,004	2,201	5,217Total	895,165	439,069	831,841	2,166,075Cod	29,832	15,214 996	52,446 52,100 66,062	97,49253,096 93,5589,658 220	17,838	34,998 9,461 4,656 20,096 1,866	35,21831,386 10,958 37,712 1,116	2,124 15,032	42,97130,64637,898	95,706Other fish	1,792	4,774709,941	389,620	790,090	1,889,6511,880 30,142 2,007 86,467 9,830 1,540	340	14,577 4,059 37,165 2,600	16,7974,834	39,0352,578	41.75026,188	115,255327	2,442 1,490	12,599628	3,658
962,689	515,409	1,094,108	2,572,206
				
1 Value of fish landings includes the value of fish consumed by fishermen from his own catch which amounts are not segregated. Therefore the actual cash received by fishermen (which is assumed to be the "cash value" referred to in the question) is not available. In relation to the total value of landings, the value of that portion consumed by fishermen is very small.
[Stage Direction]
veterans' insurance
Mr. Bryce:: 1.	How many applications for veterans' insurance
were received between October 15,	1952 and
February 1, 1953?
2.	How many policies were issued during that period?
3.	Have any premiums been collected for policies not issued during that period?
4.	If so, what is the amount of these premiums?


Mr. Mulch:: 1.	547, from October 15, 1952 to February 1, 1953, both dates inclusive.
2.	589.
3 and 4. Amount of premiums (including one remittance of $1,000) which accompanied applications received from October 15, 1952 to February 1, 1953, both dates inclusive, where the policy was not issued during that period: $1,428.55.
CIVIL defence grants
Questions
3.	Has there been any redredging done at Tracadie gully, since 1935?
4.	If so, (a) in what years were such operations carried on; (b) what amount of money was spent therefor in each and every year?
5.	Has the Department of Public Works received any complaints, about the condition of the Tracadie breakwaters and gully, and representations stressing the urgency of redredging the said gully and effecting major repairs to the said breakwaters?
6.	If so, (a) have the necessary inquiries, investigations and surveys been made by departmental engineers; (b) when were they made; (c) what was the nature of the reports made by departmental engineers as a result of such surveys, inquiries or investigations?
7.	Is the Department of Public Works aware that the said breakwaters are presently in a state of almost demolition and the entrance to the Tracadie harbour almost completely blocked?
8.	Are any plans for the redredging of the said entrance or gully and for repairs to the said breakwaters presently under advisement by the Department of Public Works?
9.	If so, (a) what is the nature and extent of such plans; (b) when will a start be made to correct the serious situation now prevailing at Tracadie gully?


Mr. Juiras:: 


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: How many provinces have taken advantage of the federal civil defence grants program and in what amounts?


Emmett Andrew McCusker: Four provinces-British
Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba-have submitted projects under the federal civil defence grants program.
The quota available to each of these provinces and the value of the projects submitted by them are as follows:
Province
Value of Project
*Quota Submitted
British Columbia .$ 132,000	$ 70,000
Alberta	
85,000	5,000Saskatchewan	....	66,000	48,000Manitoba	
83,000	47,000
*The quota has been worked out for each province on the basis of 8 cents per capita of the province and an additional 6 cents per capita per federally designated target area. The method of disbursement is on the basis of the federal government matching expenditures by the provincial governments on a dollar for dollar basis.



TRACADIE, N.B.  BREAKWATERS AND DREDGING

Mr. Robichaud:: 1.	What was the total cost of the breakwaters constructed, and of the dredging done at Tracadie, Gloucester county, New Brunswick, about some twenty years ago?
2.	What amounts of money have been expended for repairs and maintenance of the breakwaters at Tracadie, in each and every year, since the year of their completion to date?
1. (a) $183,459.08; (b) $26,881.06.
2.	Construction
work related
Year	Maintenance to improverepairs	ments and
repairs
1934	
$ 16.76	$ Nil1935	
Nil	Nil1936	
399.75	1,009.181937	
Nil	253.501938	
Nil	74.951939	
294.95	Nil1940	
184.35	8,858.481941	
69.95	14,785.401942	
Nil	Nil1943	
2,585.56	Nil1944	
3,189.29	Nil1945	
49.95	Nil1946	
767.83	Nil1947	
388.90	Nil3.	Yes.4.	(a)	(b)1937	
$24,981.041938	
26,543.461939	
20,554.081940	
9,747.215.	Yes.6.	(a) Survey under way; (b) winter survey authorized; (c) report not yet received.7.	Yes.8.	Matter will be considered.9.	Please see answer to No. 8.
External Affairs



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many immigration officers are there in (a) Great Britain; (b) each of the European countries?
2.	What are the names of such officers and their respective locations, salaries, qualifications, and dates of appointment?


LAWYERS AND NOTARIES, ROBERVAL DISTRICT   GOVERNMENT AGENTS
Mr. Spence:: 1.	What are the names of the lawyers and notaries residing in the district of Roberval, who have acted as agents for the different departments or boards of the federal government, during each of the fiscal years, 1947-48, 1948-49, 1949-50, 1950-51, 1951-52 and from April 1, 1952 to December 31, 1952.
2.	What amount of fees has been paid to each of them and in connection with what services?



FARM INCOME


Mr. Aylesworlh:: 1.	How many farms are there in each province of Canada?
2.	How many income tax inspectors or farm assessors are there in each province of Canada?
3.	What was the 1951 cash income from the sale of farm products, by provinces?
4.	What was the 1951 average cash income per Earm, by provinces?
5.	What was the total cost of the income tax inspectors or farm assessors, in each province?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 11, 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.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when the
house adjourned yesterday I had almost completed my review of international developments. It had become almost a review of the development of collective security arrangements around the globe. In any such review-and I ended it yesterday with consideration of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-I think it is clear that there is one important area of the world where collective security arrangements are most conspicuous by their absence. I am referring to the Middle East. That is a gap, and an important one, in our efforts to defend ourselves and the free world collectively.

It is, I think, clear that that gap is not likely to be closed by Middle East defence and security arrangements until the political relationships between some of the countries in the Middle East are happier than they are, unfortunately, at the present. That is only one reason why I think the house will have welcomed the announcement today that an arrangement has been concluded between the government of the United Kingdom and the government of Egypt covering the future of the Sudan, which should be a step forward in stabilizing that whole area. It will also have been made clear, I hope, that all these separate collective security arrangements really hang together. They are in a sense interdependent.
Yesterday I finished my discussion by dealing with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. That organization, as we know, is a limited association of fourteen states whose responsibilities under the treaty extend only to a clearly defined area. Meanwhile it is becoming increasingly clear that it is communist world strategy to attempt to drain away the strength of the western democracies by military and quasi-military action in the Far East and other places and by fomenting disturbances in the Middle East and in Africa. The communist threat then is on a global scale, and no exclusively regional approach to that threat will be sufficient. The policies required to meet it must be world-wide too. Asian problems are linked with European problems, as has been so clearly demonstrated in the case of Indo-China.
Therefore, while each of the NATO partners has its own particular and necessarily limited commitments, it is essential, I think, that in the formulation of their plans-and this is becoming increasingly recognized in NATO-they should take account of their implications in the global setting. Before that can be done by NATO, I think it is fair to say that the strength and the progress of the NATO effort will have to be linked in some satisfactory fashion with the move towards greater European unity.
Last June when I reviewed the European scene I spoke in some detail of the treaty constituting a European defence community which had been signed at Paris on May 27 by representatives of the governments of France, the federal republic of Germany, Italy and the Benelux countries. At that time there were reasonable grounds for hoping that the treaty would be ratified and in force by the end of 1952. Unfortunately that hope has not been fulfilled. In both France and Germany hesitations and doubts

have emerged and persisted, arising perhaps out of the conflict between hopes for the future and memories of the past. These have resulted in disappointments and delays which have possibly caused more surprise and impatience in some quarters than they should have. After all, the decisions to be made in this matter are not easy ones and they involve renunciations of sovereignty that would have been unthinkable even fifteen or twenty years ago.
Those of us who criticize Europeans for being so slow to come together, and who sometimes are tempted to draw what may be misleading historical analogies in urging them to do so, should ask ourselves how readily we would welcome similar renunciations of sovereignty on our own part. Yet while we should understand the hesitations and the difficulties, we should also, I think, clearly realize the desirability, indeed possibly the necessity, for the right decisions to be made soon so that Europe can combine its strength with ours for security and progress. In the darkly menacing picture of our world today, the ancient quarrels of Europe are not important enough to occupy the foreground. The picture must be looked at, I suggest, from a new perspective.
It is unwise to underestimate the depth and sincerity of the national feelings involved, but what alternative is there to European unity of some kind for defence and, indeed, for Europe's very existence? The question that Europeans and ourselves will have to answer is: Is there any solution more acceptable to the parties concerned than the European defence community which is now before them for consideration?
The concept of a European army is a bold and original one which will not be easy of quick realization. But I think it is the best and safest proposal yet made to bring Germany into the western defence system, without which there cannot really be an effective collective defence of western Europe. That it involves risks I would be the last to deny. Recent evidence of pro-nazi activities in West Germany points up one aspect of this risk. But there is no course in this matter without risk. We live in times which are not calculated to bring comfort to the timid, and a new world cannot be built in Europe on a foundation of ancient wrongs.
Between now and the eventual ratification of the treaties, I am confident that the statesmen of the free world will find solutions to the difficulties which the European defence community faces, particularly in relation to such problems as the Saar and Indo-China.
The latter problem of Indo-China, which we touched on yesterday and which is so
External Affairs
important to the free world, was publicly recognized as such at the December meeting of the North Atlantic council; and I think it is at the root of French fears and hesitations in Europe at the present time. Incidentally, yesterday the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) asked me if I could secure information about the number of French forces in Indo-China at the present time. The figures which I have been able to obtain show that there are 164,500 troops of the French union in Indo-China now, a decrease of some 20,000 in the last few months. That excludes, of course, forces raised locally in that area. In our understandable preoccupation with Korea we may sometimes forget the magnitude of the French effort in this part of the world. We may not even be aware that French casualties during operations in Indo-China have been approximately 90,000 wounded, killed and missing-and of that figure 40,000 have been killed. It is understandable, then, that in the plans for closer European defence unity, in which Germany will participate, the French still have very much in mind the diversion of their defence effort necessitated by the situation in Indo-China.
The additional protocols which the present French government has said it intends to negotiate before it accepts the European defence treaty are meant, in part, to take into account France's overseas commitments and to allay the fears of the French 'people arising out of these overseas commitments and their relationship in turn to the new commitments that they are being asked to assume in Europe. The strong and expressed desire of the French government to see the United Kingdom associate itself more closely with the European defence community is also, I think, to some extent a reflection of France's feeling that she cannot safely put her whole endeavour into the European army so long as she is committed in Indo-China.
It will be recalled here that the United Kingdom, which is already making such a big contribution to European defence and, indeed, to the defence of freedom generally, has already taken a number of steps in the direction of a closer association with the European defence community. I am sure that we hope that she may find it possible to take even further steps to that end which will not prejudice, of course, her commonwealth and overseas interests and responsibilities.
We, in Canada, have given evidence of our strong concern, I think, with the defence of Europe-which is our own defence-both by the pledge and by the presence of our forces

External Affairs
in Europe and by our program of mutual aid. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, by signing and giving parliamentary	approval	to	theNATO-EDC protocol, we have recognized the direct importance to us of the European defence community arrangements themselves. By that protocol, we in Canada assume, as members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization,	reciprocal	obligations	for	defence along	with the	European	defencecommunity.	When we talk about	the
community and express our opinions oh it we are talking about something with which we are already connected by our actions here. There is provision in this protocol for mutual consultations between the councils of the two organizations; provision for joint sessions whenever one or the other deems that desirable; and arrangements for the closest co-ordination on the technical level. In that sense, if these European defence arrangements become operative they will bring Germany not merely into association with the European defence army but into association with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
So, the unity and the defence of Europe are not matters to which we give an Olympian blessing from a distant shore. In whatever final form the European army becomes a reality, its officers and men will have Canadians as comrades-in-arms since we share a common aim, which is the defence of freedom. We shall all be united, I hope, behind the shield of NATO.
Although the European army, then, has not come into being, European integration is making encouraging progress in other respects. In fact, the day before yesterday an event of very real symbolic and practical importance in the development of European integration took place; and I am referring to the proclamation establishing the common market in western Europe for coal under the terms of the Schuman plan, to be followed in April by the common market for steel. By these arrangements a start has been made in eliminating customs barriers and price discrimination in these vital materials over a vast area inhabited by millions of people. Today the European coal and steel community begins what should develop into close and fruitful European collaboration in the economic field.
In the conception and in the working out of this new supranational body, because that is what it is, Europe owes a great deal to the brilliance and energy of M. Jean Monnet, the first head of the high authority of the Schuman plan, and also to the courage and initiative of M. Robert Schuman himself. M. Schuman has shown a remarkable capacity for reaching out to new concepts and bold

designs. There are still many obstacles to overcome in the development of European integration, but the very fact that we can speak of the possibility of such integration at all is due in large part to M. Schuman's unsparing efforts to reach an understanding with the neighbours of France beyond the Rhine. I have every confidence that his distinguished successor as foreign minister of France, M. Bidault, will continue this task with equal success.
Such, Mr. Speaker, is the picture very roughly and inadequately sketched, and with many omissions, some of which I have no doubt will be pointed out in the course of this debate.
The picture continues to give cause for concern, but in some respects it is, I think, a shade brighter than when I spoke last June. Uncertainty and anxiety still darken the general design. We still live in a world which is groping for unity and peace. It is true, and we have been reminded of it with increasing vehemence recently, that the leaders of Soviet communism are prepared to offer the world "unity" and "peace", but what unity, what peace and at what price? If it is simply the acceptance of Soviet domination, and the relinquishing of our liberty, that price is too high and there can be no bargaining on that basis. For us, and for all people who value freedom at its true worth, that is a price which we shall not pay. But there is no reason for despair. We must, and I am sure we can, with patience and perseverance and the right use of our growing strength, discover another and a better way of finding a durable peace within the framework of freedom.


Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):: This motion is made for the purpose of referring the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to the standing committee bearing that same name. At the outset of my remarks this afternoon I want to deal with one or two matters which I feel ought to be the subject of discussion, deliberation and decision by that committee when it is convened. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the standing committee on external affairs is unique in our parliamentary institution, because it is one of the few committees which are privileged to deal with the estimates of a department. It has, of course, taken on a unique characteristic in that the estimates are largely discussed in that committee rather than in the committee of the whole house.
I want to point out to the house, if I may, one of the things which I feel the standing committee on external affairs ought to deal

with at this session or the session immediately succeeding. It is a matter which arises all too soon, and concerns the revision of the United Nations charter itself. When the San Francisco conference brought in its recommendations, which were later embodied in the charter of the United Nations, there was a section which called for review, change and amendment of the charter itself.
If we turn to article 109, section 3, we find these words:
If such a conference has not been held before the tenth annual session of the general assembly following the coming into force of the present charter, the proposal to call such a conference shall be placed on the agenda of that session of the general assembly, and the conference shall be held if so decided by a majority vote of the members of the general assembly and by a vote of any seven members of the security council.
During the San Francisco conference discussions, there were a number of proposals made with respect to the length of time the charter should be in force before it came up for review. In the first draft of the conference decision, I believe the time was set at fifteen years and later changed to ten. Of course, there is another proviso which gives the general assembly the right, at any time prior to the ten-year period having expired, to call a conference for this purpose if a two-thirds majority of the members say so. I believe that public attention will be riveted upon the expiration of the ten-year period because there is in Canada, as there is in many parts of the world, a great desire to have the United Nations charter reviewed and brought up to date. I believe that if there ever was an organization that ought to keep abreast of the times, both as to its deliberations and as to its structure, the United Nations is that organization.
I know that much water has gone under the bridge since 1945. When the charter was set up it was designed to work in a one-world structure. Instead, it has been compelled to work in a two-world structure, split right down the middle. This fact has brought many ramifications in its trail, including the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as well as other branches which one need not mention at this stage. I believe it must have become evident to all that there is a great need now for the whole charter to be reviewed in the light of the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. For that reason, I am going to make this suggestion, and I make it because Canada gave the. lead before and Canada should give the lead again.
There was before the San Francisco conference the Dumbarton Oaks proposals relating to the organs of that United Nations 68108-119
External Affairs
Organization. In the recommendations of the Dumbarton Oaks committee, which were the basis of discussion for the San Francisco conference itself, there was a tiny chapter concerning economic and social co-operation. When the Canadian delegation got to San Francisco they began to work upon the enlargement of those proposals, and upon what they thought was an important part of the work of any world organization, the economic and social aspect. Within a few weeks of the summoning of that conference, the Canadian delegation brought forward a rather enlarged draft proposal which was then submitted to the conference itself. The basis, of course, of the conference deliberations was the Dumbarton Oaks proposals, and it was necessary to have a good number of nations support the Canadian contention that these proposals ought to be considered along with the Dumbarton Oaks proposals themselves. That was done, and the bases of the discussion of economic and social cooperation in that conference were not only the Dumbarton Oaks proposals but the Canadian draft as well. The Canadian draft was much more extensive, more practical and certainly much more effective.
It finally came to pass that the San Francisco conference voted to include very largely the Canadian proposals rather than the draft Dumbarton Oaks proposals in the United Nations charter. In other words, there were more words, more expressions and more clauses in that section of the United Nations charter put there by Canadians than by any other nation in the world. Those of us who were delegates felt very proud at the time. It gave us some pride in having given a lead to the world in connection with that matter. I believe the time has come for this Canadian parliament to give a lead again, a lead which I feel is very appropriate from the standpoint of Canada herself.
First, I should like to see the standing committee on external affairs deal with this matter, and if it is felt that there should be a special committee set up, drawn from the membership of the standing committee, that is all right, because I have no particular ideas about the structure of the committee. I think no time should be lost in having the committee go over the entire charter of the United Nations, review it thoroughly, and have full discussions and deliberations with respect to it so that well before the expiration of the ten-year period the Canadian delegation at the United Nations Organization meetings will be able to come before the world and to say:	We have given study to
the revision of this charter; these are the results of our deliberations and our careful

External Affairs
consideration of it; and we as a delegation present it to the United Nations for approval, rejection or amendment.
I am going to make that suggestion as a help to our Canadian delegation. I do so with one thought especially in mind. If the United Nations Organization is worth preserving-and with every bit of conviction at my command I say that it is-then it ought to be worth the time of the members of this house who are interested to give study to it so that it would be an improved and modernized version of the charter that would be presented by the Canadian delegation, at the appropriate time, to the general assembly of the United Nations Organization. I leave that thought with the house in the hope that it will be regarded as a constructive suggestion aimed at improving not only the United Nations Organization itself but also as a step towards permanent peace.
I also want to deal, if I may, with another matter which came before the standing committee on external affairs on previous occasions. I refer to the passport situation. I am sure that matter will be dealt with again during the present sittings of that committee. I think it was in 1950 that the question of passports to those who wanted to leave this country for purposes that, to say the least, were rather suspicious, came before that committee for consideration. There were a number of members on all sides of the house who took an active interest, and the committee itself showed keen concern with respect to the deliberations that ensued. For instance, in the report of the 1950 standing committee on external affairs one finds these words:
Your committee recommends that the Department of External Affairs actively re-examine at once the question of the issuance and revocation of passports granted to Canadian citizens whose loyalty to alien systems of government take priority over loyalty to ours.
That was a matter that was debated in the committee. Later on in the report of the 1952 committee on external affairs, a follow-up of that question was made:
That ways and means for dealing more effectively with Canadians whose sympathies appear to lie with countries behind the iron curtain and who travel freely between Canada and those countries should be kept continually in review.
I want to bring that matter to the attention of the house at the moment because I think it is one which is engaging the attention and the concern of a good many Canadian citizens today. I was interested in hearing what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) said or is reported to have said at Guelph in connection with the matter of witch-hunting. I think

all members of this house who are possessed of good common sense will agree that witchhunting is not a thing that is part of the character of our own Canadian people. It is not the kind of thing that Canadians are in favour of. Moreover, it is a thing that I think Canadians will revolt from at every opportunity. But I want to say this. While emphasizing the statement that there must be no witch-hunting, we must be careful that we do not lean backwards in the other direction. I think there should be a close vigilance with respect to those who have been, during these years, deliberately blurring the loyalty line between Canadians and other nationalities abroad who have a different way of life from ours. I think it would be unfortunate if we encouraged that kind of blurring of Canadian loyalty in the days that lie ahead by any statement that would indicate that we are not in any way fully vigilant with regard to the problem in that connection.
In the United States, of course, there are something like six stages which must be gone through before a passport is issued. Perhaps those stages would not be applicable to our own nation and I am not suggesting that they should be. But there has been a tightening up of the regulations across the line, and perhaps this committee ought to consider how far we in Canada can go to meet the situation and at the same time preserve all those elements of freedom to which we have from time to time declared, and will continue to declare, our adherence.
I must say that I have nothing but contempt for Canadian citizens who are prepared at any time to sell out their own team for another. I think that a Canadian citizen has a right either to play ball with his own land or to go to some other land where he thinks he	can	play ball better.	In theUnited States not so long ago-and I am sure it could apply to many other countries as well-in the realm of sport-in basketball, I think it was-a national furore arose over the fact that men had sold out their own team. Still I think it is important that we bring to the attention of the Canadian people that there are in Canada those who are selling	out their	own team.	In allfairness to those others who play on the team and	to	whom	we owe a	greaterresponsibility than we owe to those who would sell	us	out, I	tjiink we ought to
consider carefully just how far we allow passports and the great privilege of Canadian citizenship to go to those who admit, in some instances, or who have admitted that they

owe a higher loyalty to another government and another philosophy of life than they owe to our own.
I think that those are matters which ought to come before the standing committee on external affairs. It seems to me that the time has come when we must give careful consideration to how far we can go in connection with this matter. When I make those suggestions I want to make it perfectly clear

and I think everybody in this house would want to have it made perfectly clear- that our elementary desire is to see that the freedom of the individual is a thing that always must come first; but I want to point out that there comes a time when we perhaps have to consider whether or not the freedom to destroy freedom itself has to be curbed to the extent required.
I just want to pass on, if I may, to another point which I think has been dealt with by the external affairs committee in previous years and which I think deserves attention again on this occasion. In previous years, during the sittings of that committee, the question of the international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation came up for review. In one of the reports of that committee it was indicated that some closer liaison should be effected between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's international service, which beams their programs to other countries, as you know, the external affairs department, and the minister responsible for the policy which is beamed to those other places.
I know one of the steps the government took in connection with that was to take the Hon. Jean Desy, who is one of the very able diplomats in the foreign service, and to put him on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's international service. When the external affairs committee is set up, Mr. Desy ought to be brought before that committee. We ought to know what is going on in connection with our international service. There are certain questions that come to my mind which ought to be made clear to the Canadian people. First of all, what is the over-all policy and purpose of the international radio service? Second, how closely is it tied in with the minister and the Department of External Affairs? Third, to what minister are Mr. Desy and his staff responsible, and what department determines the policy so pursued? Fourth, if he is serving two masters in connection with this matter, then the committee ought to know. Fifth, does our policy mesh, for instance, with the "Voice of America" program and the British Broadcasting Corporation's international service? In that connection we ought to be told whether
68108-119i
External Affairs
those services are being duplicated and where the duplication arises. More than that, if the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's international service is attempting to follow both of them, it will have to be a masterpiece, because they do not always follow each other. It is important because this country may have to give the lead in seeing that there is a synchronization of the type of beaming of programs that goes on to other countries behind the iron curtain. It would be unfortunate if there was a babel of voices reaching to those very vulnerable areas to which we are trying to direct our attention today.
In addition to that, what do we hold out to Europe? In these international broadcasts do we hold out the lure of containment or liberation, or what is our exact line of policy which we hold out to them from time to time? What steps has the government taken in line with our NATO policy of unification to get closer to the single voice idea? For instance, I should like to see the committee have the opportunity of hearing the recordings of these international broadcasts that are beamed to certain countries. We should have some samples of the programs so recorded because, it seems to me, in all our domestic work we watch the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation very closely. But I do not think anybody in the house has the slightest idea what is beamed by our international service to other countries of the world. I think that is important. It is something that ought to be opened up. The public ought to know exactly what the facts are. We can then decide whether the policy which is being pursued is an effective and apt one for Canada to pursue at this time.
I come to another point that I think will have to be considered by the standing committee on external affairs. This is a matter which has arisen by virtue of the Auditor General's report. On page 21 of the Auditor General's report the Department of External Affairs comes in for some comment. I wish to take the time of the house to read the paragraph which deals with an alleged irregularity. It is No. 49 in the Auditor General's report on the page I have just mentioned. This is what Mr. Watson Sellar says:
Who Is a Canadian citizen within the ambit of vote 90? That is the question which causes attention to be drawn to an unusual case which resulted in a $3,620 charge to that vote, which reads: "To provide for relief of distressed Canadian citizens abroad". Annually, parliament provides a sum ($20,000 in 1951-52) for the relief of Canadians who, for one reason or another, are destitute in foreign lands and are regarded by Canadian representatives abroad as persons who, in the interests of Canada's international repute, . . .

External Affairs
I emphasize that:
-who, in the interests of Canada's international repute, should be assisted or brought back to Canada. No person may, as a right, demand financial assistance, and ordinarily advances take the form of loans, though recovery is not invariably effected.
Among those assisted in 1951-52 was a naturalized Canadian of Polish origin who returned to Poland in 1949 at the expense of the Polish government. Subsequently he applied to the Canadian legation in Warsaw for financial assistance in order that he might return to Canada.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: A good citizen now.


Gordon Graydon: I continue:
He undertook, in writing, to repay any money advanced, after his return to Canada. Pending the obtaining of an exit visa, the legation made advances for hotel accommodation and meals. On October 27, 1951, the Polish government informed the legation that no exit visa would be issued, and on November 16 further advised that prior to leaving Canada the man had applied at the Polish legation in Ottawa for admission into Poland as a repatriate. This statement was confirmed by the man himself on November 23. Nevertheless, advances continued to be made to cover expenses until January 19, 1952. In all, the man's expenses were paid during the period from July 1, 1951, to January 19, 1952, but it is the propriety of the payments after November 23 which is of concern.
Perhaps the amount tor all his hotel accommodation and meals ought to be in question as well, but the Auditor General does not mention that at this time. Certain questions come to one's mind, and they will of course have to be answered by someone in authority in connection with this. First, what definition does the department use as to who is a Canadian citizen when relief is extended to Canadian citizens abroad, because this seems to be an unusual situation for the ordinary Canadian citizen to find himself in? Second, the committee should be told who is the man that received this aid in that year and how much he obtained. In addition to that, what is the state of collections generally in connection with this account that is from time to time utilized for Canadian citizens abroad? When the government is answering that question I should like to know why this particular person who got this money wanted to go to Poland in the first place and what reasons he gave to the government here for wanting to go. If I may say so, it ties in with what I have said before, that we must not allow a lot of looseness in people running all over the world under the cloak of Canadian citizenship and then finding themselves hard up and the Canadian government having to put up money. That does not sound sensible to me. But on the other hand I am only asking a question so that the government will have time eventually to answer it.
In addition to that I should like to know why the Poles were anxious to get him be-

hind the iron curtain. They paid his fare to get him there; that is what they did. We did not pay his fare for him to go there, we just looked after him once he got there. The next thing I should like to know is, why were his expenses paid from November 23 to January 19, 1952, after he and the Polish government had said that he had applied at the Polish legation in Ottawa, not as a Canadian going over on a trip but as a Canadian who wanted to go back to his own country and stay there as a repatriate.
I would think that, having looked at that situation and having in mind what the Auditor General has said, it would seem that whoever that party is-I hope we shall not be denied too long being told who he is-he has perfect justification to laugh up his sleeve at the government here for being able to extract so much money, so easily for so little. I think it is important that this matter be investigated at once. After all, if I may be permitted to interject something facetious in the middle of a most serious comment, if horses on the payroll by proxy is bad, I do not think we want any Warsaw sympathizers to get on the gravy train as well. I think that is something we had better be careful about. I want to leave that with the minister for his rumination and consideration. I think I may say that, as far as the committee is concerned, these are four matters which I fancy will take up some time when it finally convenes.
I want to come, if I may, to the question of our position in Canada with respect to the change of government in the United States of America. I am afraid I cannot congratulate the minister upon his exhaustive review of United States policy in the Far East, but I do congratulate him upon his dexterity in tiptoeing through the tulips on some of these things. I think he did that very well. I want to deal with these matters, perhaps not very exhaustively, but because I think it is important that some reference be made in our Canadian parliament to the situation brought about by the change in the United States government.
Along with others in the house I was in the United States during the presidential election campaign. I think those of us who were there gained an indelible impression of what happened and of the factors and features of that campaign, things which did not always reach beyond the borders of the United States. United States policy seems to me to have stiffened rather materially as has been indicated by President Eisenhower in his state of the union address, and I think it may properly be said that this is a

direct result alter all of the feelings of the United States people as one found them expressed during the election campaign.
At that time some newspapers said that there were three main things concerning the United States people prior to and during the election itself-Korea, corruption and communism. I am not going to attempt to deal with domestic matters in the United States because it is none of my business, nor perhaps are some of the foreign policy decisions that may be made from time to time; nevertheless, I think there is some indirect interest and sometimes a very direct interest in Canada in what is going on, particularly in the minds of those who are legislating with respect to the leadership of the world, as the United States is now doing.
One could see during that election campaign that the patience of the United States people was wearing pretty thin. After all, that is a nation which does not take too well to stalemates. More than that, I think one can say that its national emblem will never be a snail. Against that background I think we have to assess the position in which we find ourselves now in connection with the stiffening of United States policy, both in Europe and in the Far East. After all, we must not forget that the United States people have been pretty well provoked, pretty well annoyed and pretty well exasperated by the stealthy under-the-table aggression of the Soviet republic down through these years.
I think one can very readily understand the position that they took. After all, General Eisenhower as President of the United States is not just entirely responsible to the British nor is he entirely responsible to Canadians, nor is he entirely responsible to other countries. He is partly responsible to his own people as well, if I may put it in that way. As you know, his own people demanded something more firm and positive in the way of policy in the interests of peace itself. I think we can connect the ending of Formosan isolation with that desire for positive action which was indicated so far as the state of the union speech was concerned.
I think most of us in this parliament, in looking at the situation from the common-sense point of view, will say that a firm and positive policy, rather than a policy of hesitation and appeasement, brings peace rather than war. I think there are two good illustrations of that to be found without going very far back into history. One of the first is the Berlin blockade when there was no hesitancy and no appeasement. A strong and firm stand was taken at that time.
External Affairs
In addition there is the NATO alliance, which the minister endorsed again this afternoon, and which of course we all endorse. That is another example of what I mean. The NATO alliance was a pretty positive action to take. It was a stiffening of our position right across the board. There were many people who thought it was dangerous, that it might provoke war; but instead of that I think most of the apostles of peace today will say that NATO has had a very great stabilizing effect and has been responsible largely for the advance we have made toward a peaceful world.
One hears from time to time about the provocation caused by United States moves in the Far East and the like; but we should not forget that if we want to find real examples of provocation all we need do is to follow the sordid story from the absorption of Poland at the close of this war down through the peace in the Balkans, to Hungary, Czechoslovakia, China and then to Korea. We find there a period in which provocation reached its highest level in the world's history.
While there may be criticism from time to time of the position which the Americans take on matters of such a delicate nature as this, nevertheless I think it is important that we realize that Canadians had better not be too thin-skinned about the whole question of our relationships in the free power community. I think that at no time should we be hesitant about putting our best foot forward and raising our voice in consultations with respect to the formulation of policies. But after the state of the union message was delivered by President Eisenhower I was not one of those who thought that there was anything in that speech for the Canadian people or the Canadian government to be worked up about. I think what the minister has said in his speech rather indicates that perhaps we are not alone in holding that view. It seems to me that so far as Canada is concerned we have some responsibility in connection with the question of consultation, if you like, because there will be many Canadians who will say that we were not consulted about the deneutralization of the straits between Formosa and the Chinese mainland.
There may be perfectly good reasons why we should have been consulted; but on the other hand let us not forget that, despite the fact that the minister never seems to have entirely agreed with us, we on this side of the house have been calling for a Pacific pact for a long time. When speaking yesterday the minister said that he would like to have somebody point out to him a good reason why we should enter into such a pact

External Affairs	.
at this time. Then he went on to raise four very large roadblocks which I suppose he figured nobody would get over. I want to say to the minister, however, that, so far as a Pacific pact is concerned, if there ever was a good argument in favour of having a pact so that nations with an interest in the Pacific theatre could have a chance to put their feet under the table, consult each other and talk things over, it can be found in the very fact that there are Canadians who think we ought to be consulted on matters such as Formosa and other places, and I believe the opportunity to do that would come best through having a Pacific pact so that the opportunity would be there. It would be agreed upon and it would be a right.
In the light of the present situation, with a stiffening of United States policy in the Far East and elsewhere, I think it is essential for Canada, despite the denials of the minister, to have a voice, to be consulted and to sit in on policy decisions in the Pacific in the same way as we sit in on policy decisions on the North Atlantic area. I should like to point out something else in passing, and this is one thing that does sadden me a little so far as the question of division in approach and policy is concerned. Since the change in Russian policy last summer-at least it was an announced change-as the result of which they emphasized the need of dividing the free world and conquering it, there is one thing that we have to be very careful about in this parliament and elsewhere. We must be careful not to play any part in dividing the free world. I think we in this chamber have a responsibility to make sure that we do not play any part or contribute in any way to a repetition of the Tower of Babel performance of biblical times.
There are enough people trying to divide the free powers without our helping them. I think that Canada has a very important role to play in bringing together the divergent views

and there are divergent views- among those who are numbered as our most valuable allies and friends. I hope that as time goes on we shall play our full part in bringing these friends together and that statements will not be made in this house which will only give comfort to a prospective enemy in the days that lie ahead. I have read the remarks made in the British House of Commons by one who would like to be the leader of the Labour party in that country. I must say that I cannot see how Mr. Aneurin Bevan can be regarded as a man who is bringing great international statesmanship to the consideration of these 
matters. From what I can gather his statements mean rather the introduction of international mischief amongst the free powers of the world rather than constructive international statesmanship. I would hope that as time goes on we in Canada will make sure that our criticism is at least constructive and designed, so far as it is possible for us to do so, to bring our friends together instead of making it more difficult for them to work with each other.
I come now to the European defence community which the minister mentioned yesterday and again at the end of his speech this afternoon. I know that when Mr. Dulles made his off-the-cuff speech with respect to the European defence community there were those who rushed on the platform, on the radio and to the press with violent denunciations of the ultimatum that the secretary of state of the United States had delivered to the European powers. I would think that today an ultimatum is distinctly out of place among friends, and if I thought that Mr. Dulles had given an ultimatum I would be the first one to criticize his position.
I think in all fairness, however, we have to consider that when General Eisenhower was a candidate for the presidential post in the election campaign of last October in the United States he made this statement:
If at the end of seven years after world war II and $33 billion of foreign aid the central problem is as far from solution as it is today, I think something has been wrong in our thinking. Certainly we must find a substitute for the purely temporary business of bolstering the free nations through annual handouts. This gets neither permanent results nor real friends.
What Mr. Dulles said in his off-the-cuff speech, as it is often referred to, was in my opinion designed to give some encouragement and impetus to the advancement towards unity of the free nations of Europe. It may have been that some of the words he used were not the type of words that would be used by experienced diplomats, but nevertheless they were designed as a reminder that the 1947 Marshall plan had as its original purpose the helping of the European countries to get their own houses in order.
I must confess that I was very interested in what the minister said and most encouraged that he took such an optimistic view of what had been done in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, because I think that kind of news will be most welcome to everyone in the house. Nevertheless one of the things that I think we have to recognize is that there has been a new upsurge of nationalism in certain countries committed to the European defence community, and in addition a restatement of United States prin-

ciples and policies towards the European defence community was perhaps felt to be in order. It seems to me that after the visit of Mr. Dulles and after his speech there has been a quickening of the movement towards unity in Europe. I hope that will be the sole result of the speech he delivered and the visit he made to Europe after delivering his speech.
I think one of the things we shall have to recognize in connection with the European defence community, something which I imagine is at the root of the difficulties, and which Mr. Dulles no doubt found out in his visit, is that the United States cannot be isolationists in trade matters and international in defence matters at the same time.
I think that is a fair statement to make. It seems to me that those things do not go hand in hand. As the President, then the Republican candidate, said in October, certainly we must find a substitute for the purely temporary business of bolstering up free nations through annual handouts. After free nations have been put on their feet or at least after they have been given an opportunity to proceed, then of course there must not be roadblocks put in their way to further advances. They have the problem of trying to find markets for the things which they manufacture and have to sell. The result is that some people in the United States say that Europe drags her feet in defence; but some in Europe could say that the United States drags her feet as far as trade is concerned.
I was very pleased indeed, and I know that the minister was because he mentioned it in his speech, that in his state of the union address President Eisenhower indicated a desire, and a movement which he was then initiating, to free some of the channels of trade from some of the annoying barriers that have existed. The difficulties relate not only to tariff barriers but to administration obstacles as well. Those of us who have had some experience with administrative obstacles in so far as trade with the United States is concerned will relish and welcome that approach and the legislation which the President has in mind.
While we said at one time that the military was the prior consideration in connection with the European defence community, and it still must have top priority, nevertheless- and we have discussed a number of other things as well-we have to add trade as part and parcel of the building up of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization. It is now assuming a position of vast importance, as is indicated by the various conferences on trade which have taken place.
External Affairs
In concluding what I have to say in respect of the European defence community, I think we are very much indebted to various statesmen from the countries in Europe and the United States who have borne so much of the burden in the heat of the day while welding out something which most people thought could never be done. But it is being done; and in the preliminary steps, because after all I suppose these are only preliminary steps, the free world has made progress. I hope that Canada will continue to give every possible attention to having it progress and progress further. There are only three nations-our own, the United States and the United Kingdom-who have given legislative approval to the protocol for admission of the European defence community into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I hope that it will not be long before the remaining nations do likewise. I can understand, as I am sure the government can understand, the feelings of the United States government when, after we had rushed in, endorsed, and given legislative approval to that protocol last July, in the belief that we would not have time to wait for another session of the house as it was urgent, we find that in February of this year the protocol has not been endorsed. We should have a frank discussion on both sides about what must be contributed and what must be done, and Canada must proceed, as she has done before, to give every possible support to this growing and healthy international child which we hope will become a man of peace in the days that lie ahead.
I now wish to deal with a matter which is close to the hearts of all Canadians, since it has to do with our own international family. In June the coronation will take place. There will be a family reunion of a very unique character, a family reunion that has no parallel in the world's history. I was looking over the statistics in connection with the British commonwealth and empire itself and I was very interested in the figures concerning those who compose that commonwealth and empire and who will be represented at that great coronation ceremony in London in June. I was interested to learn that out of 613 million, the total number of people in the British commonwealth and empire, there are 454 million in Asia. In Europe there are about 51 million, in Africa 79 million, in Australasia 11J million, in Oceania 511,000, and in our own hemisphere a matter of something like 16 million people. I think those figures tell us a story all their own. As far as I can gather, we have three-quarters of the commonwealth and empire living on the continent of Asia where perhaps some

External Affairs
of our greatest hopes and some of our greatest fears in connection with the future lie. I think it is important to consider that situation now, when the coronation is about to take place. There lies perhaps the germ of hope which in the future may bring a co-operative world peace which some of us have been dreaming of for so long.
In addition, when we are speaking of the problem of colour, and it is spoken of sometimes in connection with these matters, only one out of every five members of the British commonwealth and empire has a face of the colour we find in this parliament here. I think that indicates too the breadth of the association and, more than that, the great strength and power for the future which rests in the commonwealth and empire itself. I am sure that everyone will agree that the coronation is a revitalizing force for peace and stability, not only in our part of the world but in other parts as well.
I come now to a matter in connection with our relations with the motherland and with other parts of the commonwealth itself. I have not discussed it with anybody so nobody has to take any responsibility for what I say in connection with it-if they ever do anyway. I want to put this idea forward because it is a matter which affects parliament and it is a matter which will, of course, affect the next government of Canada perhaps more than it will affect this government. That is the reason I do not want to direct my remarks to the present government-because you never can tell-


An hon. Member:: You do not need to prophesy.


Gordon Graydon: I want to mention the matter because it has been very close to my heart and because I think it may commend itself, and I hope it will commend itself, to the house membership at large. I presume that the twenty-second parliament of Canada will open in 1954. When it does open, it will be a new parliament. I fancy there will be a lot of changes in that parliament, but regardless of that I think it is a good time to make a start on what I suggest. I know that there will be a mass of constitutional thickets, brambles and underbrush to be cleaned out before this can be done, but where there is a will there is a way. I would hope that in this case there would be both a will and a way. I know that officialdom will look askance at the suggestion I am going to make, and perhaps that will go farther than officialdom. In any event, I believe that, at the opening of the first session of the twenty-second parliament of Canada, this country

should arrange for Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret to come here and open our parliament at Ottawa. This suggestion is not made, as the Governor General himself will know, with any reflection upon him because he has every opportunity to open and close parliament on other occasions.
I feel there is something worth while in the suggestion of having a member of the Royal Family come here and open our proceedings once in a while. I know that we cannot always have Her Majesty come here because she has other duties to perform. At that time she will have gone to the antipodes and other parts of the empire. I am sure that in Canada there is a great desire, particularly amongst the young people, to have Princess Margaret come here. I should like parliament to take that suggestion into consideration, and when the time comes to extend an invitation to that very popular, charming and talented member of the Royal Family to initiate our legislative proceedings.
I am going to close my remarks, if I may, by simply quoting from the last paragraph of a broadcast I made only a few weeks ago. It reads as follows:
In the midst of this uneasy peace the coronation of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second stands out as a significantly peaceful event. It is a family affair and the commonwealth and empire family will present, as it gathers together on that historic occasion, a unique picture against the blurred and tense background of international relations. In this family circle will be men and women of good will drawn from every continent of the world, for the commonwealth and empire girdles the globe. Because it is a voluntary international family embracing in its membership peoples of diverse colour, nationality, race and creed and with a vast majority of its members who are Asiatics, it may well turn out to be the most powerful link in bringing permanent understanding and harmony between the Occident and the Orient of any comparable organization in the whole of the world's history. The crown that will be placed upon the head of the charming and talented Elizabeth next June may be the focal point of a new and successful approach towards a bridging of the gap between the east and west, which badly needs to be bridged if stability is to be the keynote of world relations in the days of tomorrow. We live in dangerous and challenging times but the clouds about us are not without their silver linings. The prize of lasting peace is a precious trophy and Canadians will continue to strive with all their might and main to possess it.


Mr. Angus Maclnnis (Vancouver East):: As
my time is limited, Mr. Speaker, and, the time of the two preceding speakers was not, I shall have to deal more directly with the various matters with which I shall try to deal. I shall only deal with one or two points arising out of the speeches of the minister and the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon).

I should like to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) upon his election as president of the seventh session of the United Nations general assembly. It is some time since he was elected, but this is the first opportunity I have had in speaking across the floor to extend my congratulations to him. I am one of the fortunate few members of the house who have had the opportunity of being at the general assembly with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I know how well he is liked and apparently how well he is appreciated by the other delegates there. He has, if he does not mind my saying so, many of the qualities that make for a good presiding officer. He has that pleasant appearance and disarming smile, and yet enough iron in his make-up to be tough when such a policy is required.
The house listened to the minister yesterday with keen interest. Perhaps they had hoped he would refer to some of the things to which he did not refer. I should like to comment on many of his statements, but as I have already said I have not the time. I shall, however, refer to one or two. I do agree with him when he says that political co-operation and economic conflict are difficult at times to reconcile. I believe that is a definite understatement. I believe that co-operation on the military and political levels will ultimately prove impossible unless we have co-operation at the economic level. In recent times we have seen that our efforts at co-operation on the political and military levels could be retarded by the economic actions of one member in the co-operating group.
During the course of his remarks the Secretary of State for External Affairs referred to Japan. He said something which, because of a personal association, I am going to refer to. At page 1854 of Hansard for February 11, 1953, he said:
Political considerations reinforce these economic reasons for reasonable trading relations with Japan. If she is to be retained as a healthy and reliable friend and ally in that critical part of the world, we and the other free countries must be prepared to join with her in working out satisfactory arrangements for maintaining and expanding the trade on which we are both so dependent, and on which she is especially dependent, as she sees her markets on the mainland of Asia being curtailed or possibly being lost because of political difficulties.
I am in complete agreement with the minister when he makes that statement. The reason I am referring to it now is that for years during world war II I tried to get the government of this country to deal more democratically and with greater justice with persons of Japanese origin who were unfor-t>U 08-120
External Affairs
tunate enough to be residents of Canada at that time. I did not have any great success. In speaking in this house on May 14, 1946, I said:
They fought in the last war when Japan was our ally.
That is the Canadian Japanese.
Let us not forget that there may be another war, and when the wheel of fate stops at the next war, the Japanese may again be our allies-who knows? If so, these little brown devils of today will be the little brown heroes of twenty-five years hence.
It really has happened much quicker than I expected. I refer to the fact that I said Japan would again be our ally.
It is only seven years and while it is not yet war-well, it is a cold war-they are our friends and allies. To the Secretary of State (Mr. Bradley), under whose department matters concerning these people come, I would suggest that the time is not yet too far past when justice should be done to some of these people whom we despoiled during the last war.
Mr. Speaker, most of what I shall have to say at this time will be concerned with President Eisenhower's announcement in his state of the union speech to congress; and in that regard it will differ from the speeches of the two hon. members who preceded me in this debate. I refer to the announcement that the seventh fleet would no longer be used to prevent attacks on the Chinese mainland by the forces of Chiang Kai-shek operating from Formosa. I was rather amazed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), by a certain amount of dexterous footwork, avoided reference to this question altogether. I was equally amazed when the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) took the minister's silence as meaning that the government agreed with the attitude of the official opposition in regard to this matter. If I heard him right he said that in Canada it was not really accepted as a question of very great importance. All I will say to that statement is that the hon. gentleman cannot have been reading the editorials in Canada's newspapers since February 2 when President Eisenhower made his statement.


Gordon Graydon: I did not say that, if the hon. member is quoting me.


Angus MacInnis: I did not quote verbatim; I said "if I heard the hon. member right". If the hon. member wishes to repeat what he actually said, I shall be glad to have him do so.


Gordon Graydon: I should be glad to do that, I perhaps could not repeat what I said word for word, but as I recall it what I said was that I did not think it was something thal

External Affairs
Canadians ought to get all worked up about. Those were the words I used.


Angus MacInnis: Canadians get worked up only about things over which they are concerned deeply. In my opinion no statement by the head of a government in recent times has caused so much consternation throughout the democratic world as has the statement made on February 2 by President Eisenhower. It caused consternation throughout the world because there is great fear that this move by the government of the United States may be merely the prelude to further action that can have no other end but the extension of the war in Korea and ultimately, we all fear, war on a world-wide scale.
It will be remembered that the Truman order with regard to Formosa issued on June 27, 1950, operated in two ways. The first sentence of that order was not the protection of the Chinese mainland from the nationalist forces. The first sentence in that order was:
I have ordered the seventh fleet to prevent any attack on Formosa. As a corollary to this action, I am calling upon the Chinese government on Formosa to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland.
So the seventh fleet was instructed, first of all, to prevent any attack on Formosa and second, the nationalist government of China was instructed to cease all air and sea operations against the mainland of China. The new United States policy is to allow the nationalist government of China to carry on operations against the mainland. It is reversing the first part of the Truman order, but I think it goes further than that. I think it encourages the nationalist government of China to carry on operations against the mainland. The seventh fleet is still to be used to prevent attack by communist China on Formosa.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: Eisenhower did not say that.


Angus MacInnis: He did not say that it would not do it, and he did not rescind that part of the Truman order. He only rescinded the first part of the order. If he did not rescind it, it is still in effect. I do not see how that sort of policy can be carried out by the United States without becoming involved in the Chinese civil war. Last Thursday-that is a week ago today-the Secretary of State tor External Affairs, elaborated on a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) on the previous Monday in reply to a question asked by me. I am only quoting part of the sentence but it does not misconstrue what the minister said. As reported it page 1639 of Hansard he said:
. . we do not think that the defence of Formosa, .vhich has not been assumed by the United Nations, should be confused with the defence of Korea, which has.
'Mr. Graydon.]
I agree absolutely with the minister. But neither should the civil war in China be confused with the war in Korea. The Canadian government and the Canadian people have assumed obligations in connection with operations in Korea, but neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian people have assumed any obligations in connection with the civil war in China, and we should not allow ourselves to become involved in any way in that war.
I am drawing attention to this matter because in my opinion there is danger that the recent action of the United States government may involve us in that struggle. I therefore say that now is the time to tell the United States government that we do not intend to become involved in the Chinese civil war.
In this connection I wish to quote some statements on the Korean war made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and gathered together with some other statements and papers by the Department of External Affairs in a booklet entitled "Documents on the Korean Crisis". Speaking in Windsor on November 15, 1950, the secretary of state drew attention to a statement made by him in the house on August 31 of that year. I shall read that statement into the record:
I would like to emphasize also that it is not the purpose of this government to support any course of policy which will extend the scope of the present conflict in Korea, a conflict which should be confined and localized if it is in our power to do that; and, if not, a policy which should avoid giving anyone else an excuse for extending it.
That is the end of the quotation taken from Hansard. The speech continues:
That has been the policy of the Canadian government from the outset of the war in Korea. It is still our policy today.
That was in November, 1950, and I would hope that that is still our policy in February, 1953. If it is not our policy we have not heard of any change. I continue to quote the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the Windsor meeting as they appear in the same document:
The same desire to localize the conflict and prevent it from spreading has dictated the policy which we have followed and will continue to follow over Formosa. We appreciated the necessity for action which President Truman took on the 27th of June in ordering the United States seventh fleet to defend Formosa, because it seemed to provide a way of neutralizing that island during the course of the fighting in Korea.
If we are going to accept without protest the new policy of the United States in this matter, then we should be ready to change our former policy, because it is likely that a change will have to be made.

For the benefit of my friend the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Gray don), who does not think that this is a matter of great concern to the people of Canada, may I be permitted to quote excerpts from a few editorials. The first one is from an editorial appearing in the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 2. It had to do with reports of the new Eisenhower policy, and was written before the statement itself was made in congress. It is entitled: "A new Formosa policy" and reads:
Clearly, then, the suggested new Formosan policy carries the danger of a third world war; and It is not surprising that the nations allied to the United States have shown some alarm at the Washington report. It may be that President Eisenhower has convincing evidence that the Mao government would topple quickly and would get no substantial aid from the Soviet union. If so, however, no inkling of this important knowledge has reached either the general public or the governments of the western world. They will wait with some anxiety for a clarification of the news.
The Globe and Mail is not a paper that is given to editorializing on questions like these, without having some real foundation for what it says. The Globe and Mail thinks President Eisenhower believes that with a little help from the outside the communist government in China would fall. If anyone has such ideas in his mind he should get rid of them at once because they are merely wishful thinking. Dictators do not get control of governments to let go of them that easily, and assistance or interference, as happened in the Soviet union, will merely make the communist regime in China more secure, rather than less.
We have another forthright editorial in the Financial Post of February 7, pretty nearly a week after the event. Some mention was made by the member for Peel of Bevan or Bevanites. I do not think the Financial Post can be accused of Bevanite leanings, at least I have not noticed any tendency in that direction up to the present. But the Financial Post is no less outright in dealing with the new Eisenhower policy than was the Globe and Mail. The editorial is entitled: "Easy, Mr. President, Please", and it goes on:
We foreigners didn't feel very comforted by the recent foreign policy pronunciamentos of Mr. Dulles. But President Eisenhower's first foreign policy move is disturbing. It is to unleash Chiang Kai-shek's Formosan forces and let them "raid" the Chinese mainland. At least one unhappy thing about this decision is that it widens the rift between the United States and its allies.
Its military advantages will be insignificant compared with its political disadvantages. It can only strengthen Asian suspicions of the United States and the west.
68108-120J
External Affairs
And any policy that does that-if it does only that-is a policy to be avoided. I continue:
Chiang Kai-shek's forces on Formosa, however they may appear to the American "China lobby,' are widely regarded as American puppets. They are certainly so regarded by the people of Asia far outside communist Chinese ranks. If they have any military value they owe it to the Americans.
The price we must pay in order to inflict trifling pinpricks is to give the communists a perfect pitch for new talk about American aggression.
There again I say that even that, if i1 could be avoided, should be avoided. The editorial continues:
Political pressures at home have driven Mr Eisenhower into a policy move whose unfortunate consequences will be felt abroad. Canada cannot be expected to applaud or approve, though we have nothing for it but to acquiesce.
I do not believe we should accept any policy formulated by the United States, oi by any other member with whom we are associated in Korea, without protest if we do not agree with that policy. I continue:
The weakness which has bedevilled the Korear operation has been impatience. For this it is no1 fair to blame only United States leaders. They are under great pressure from a people who arc naturally impatient. The Russian and Chinese leaders have the double advantage of followers whose patience has been proverbial and whose likes and dislikes don't matter anyway since they may not be expressed. Dealing with such people, the crying need is for western patience.
When a paper of the standing and political leanings of the Financial Post writes ar editorial such as the one I have just read it indicates that the concern in Canada is very great indeed. I now come to my Iasi quotation, and it is taken from the Calgary Herald of February 3. I am quoting only ar excerpt from the editorial:
We hope the Canadian government will remind President Eisenhower of these things, and more important, tell him that Canada wants no part ir any "incidents" out of Formosa. Canada should warn the United States that this nation will no1 have itself involved in any fights started by 01 resulting from action by Chiang Kai-shek. And i1 should make its position clear immediately as undoubtedly other friends will be doing. For the new President seems determined to chart a course on a potentially stormy sea.
Despite what the hon, member for Pee! says, I am firmly convinced that the sentiments expressed in these editorials are the prevailing view in Canada of the new Unitec States policy. My interpretation of the news from the United Kingdom is that the newspapers there, after allowing for time to studj the implications of the new Eisenhower policy have been even more forthright in condemning it than have the Canadian papers.
I think the danger most people see in thi: new policy is not just the fact that it allow: the nationalist forces on Formosa to invade

External Affairs
he mainland of China; it is very doubtful f they can do that, anyway, without assist-ince from the United States. The danger leople see is in the probability that this particular decision will extend the war, and ilso the fear that it is only the first in a ;eries of decisions that will involve the world n world war III. I think there is plenty of widence of this already, such as the proposed blockade of China. In yesterday's Evening Citizen there was an Associated Press dispatch from Washington that General Dinar N. Bradley was reported to have told :ongress Tuesday that arms shipments to Tormosa are being stepped up.
That is merely an indication not only of vhat is likely to happen but of what is really lappening. The government of the United States seems to take the position that because pf its wealth and power it can make decisions nvolving the other nations associated with it n fighting for freedom merely by informing hem of intended action.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) ipoke in reply to my question in regard to he new Eisenhower policy on February 2 le said that the Truman policy in regard to Tormosa was undertaken by the United States without consultation with other coun-ries, and therefore President Eisenhower vas merely following that precedent in tpplying his new policy to Formosa without consulting other countries. I do not deny hat the United States undertook the Truman policy without consultation with other coun-ries, but I will say that the nations fighting n Korea at that time were not as closely ntegrated as they are now. I doubt if any lation had troops there at that time except he United States.
I must insist that a united, integrated oreign policy cannot be carried out if one >f the countries concerned insists on its [DOT]ight to take separate action whenever it 'eels like it. Such a policy, if persisted in, can lead only to mistrust and bitterness and iltimately to utter confusion. It can benefit 10 one but the common enemy, in this case he communists. Because of that, Canada ihould state in firm words that cannot be nistaken that it will not be bound by this or my other action which is taken without consulting it. That is the only way in which Panada can act as an independent nation.
As one views this new United States policy le is driven to the conclusion that it is a lew kind of isolationism. After world war I he United States withdrew from the efforts hen being made to put an end to war. It vent into isolation. After the second world var-this was referred to by the hon. mem->er for Peel (Mr. Graydon) when he was

dealing with the action taken at San Francisco to form the United Nations-the democratic world was heartened when it saw that the United States was taking a leading part in building a system of united action. Under the policy announced by President Eisenhower a week ago there would seem to be indicated a new form of isolationism. The United States government is making decisions in isolation, decisions which involve other countries, on policies which they have no share in framing.
So far I have dealt only with the military possibilities resulting from the change in United States policy. I do not think the danger of this can be overemphasized. But there is another angle, the political effect on the nations of Asia resulting from any aid given to the forces of Chiang Kai-shek. By the people of Indo-China, Malaya, Indonesia, Burma, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, Chiang Kai-shek-


William Joseph Browne: Does the
hon. member have any objection to Russia giving aid to communist China?


Angus MacInnis: My answer to that is that we are not associated with Russia. What Russia does in that regard is no concern of ours. It is something we cannot help. We may object to it, but that is all. But we are associated with the United States in carrying out a policy which we hope will free the world from communism. Because we are associated with the United States we have a special interest in what the United States does.
As I said, by the people of Indo-China, Malaya, Indonesia, Burma, India, Pakistan and Ceylon, Chiang Kai-shek is considered a reactionary, corrupt remnant of the old regime in China. They will have none of him. I am sure that if it becomes a matter of joining forces either with Chiang Kai-shek or Mao Tse-tung, they will go with the Chinese communists. That has been demonstrated already in China. If aid would have saved China from the communists, then it would have been saved by the aid which the United States poured into that country. But the aid that was poured in so lavishly went to the communists in China because the people of China had lost faith in the corrupt government of Chiang Kai-shek.


William Joseph Browne: Have they faith in the communists?


Angus MacInnis: Evidently they have.


Gordon Graydon: The missionaries have not.


Angus MacInnis: Neither have I, but we are not dealing with that subject. If we are going to deal with these matters we must deal with

187S
them realistically, on the basis of what has happened, and not on some preconceived ideas that we may have in our own minds.
Most of these countries I have mentioned are on our side. If we associate ourselves with Chiang Kai-shek we are most likely to lose their support, and in the struggle going on today their support is important. These people will not believe that the Chinese nationalist leader has any interest in liberating enslaved peoples. They know that he was undemocratic, reactionary and corrupt when at the head of the government of China, and they know that he is still undemocratic, reactionary and corrupt.
It must be remembered that the struggle against communism is not mainly a military struggle, it is essentially a battle of ideas. The crucial battlegrounds of Asia are not China and other communist-held territories. Those territories have already been lost. The important battlegrounds in the field of ideas are the countries of Asia which I have mentioned already. We must be careful that we do not lose their support in trying to gain or use the support of Chiang Kai-shek who has demonstrated already beyond the possibility of a doubt that he has no following among the masses of the people of Asia.
It is said that the government of the United States is under great pressure from its people to take quick and decisive action to end the struggle in Korea. We understand that this is so. We can also appreciate their feelings because the United States has borne the brunt of the fighting in Korea up until now. But it should not be forgotten that some of the other allied nations fighting in Korea are also fighting communism in other fields. My fear is that the policies proposed at the present time in the United States will not shorten the casualty lists of United States forces, but will rather lengthen them.
There are moves on foot to have the people of South Korea accept a greater share of the fighting there; and if we are mentioning people who have borne the brunt of the fighting in Korea I think we should remember the South Korean forces, because these are the people above all people who have fought and suffered in this war, and I doubt if they have any say in it at all. It is my opinion that we shall never get out of Korea, even if we win a military decision there, unless we are able to build a stronger South Korean government. I mean a government that will have more spontaneous support from the people of South Korea than I think the Syngman Rhee government can get. In doing that the allies will have to do more in rebuilding the economy and the political life of South Korea than they have done to
External Affairs
date. Rebuilding of the political, economic and moral forces of South Korea in mj opinion is not secondary to our military effort! but should be put on an equal basis.
May I try to sum up what I have just saic in a more definite form. If these or othei changes in United States foreign policy resul in the expansion of the Korean war or the beginning of a general war, Canada will b< involved regardless of what we may do. I' is no use taking a lofty attitude and saying that this country is not committed. It migh have been possible to take such a detachec attitude 50 or even 25 years ago, but notoday. Precipitous action by any of the major powers, the United States, Britain o) Russia, could, in the explosive world in whicl we live, involve us all in an atomic war.
This group believes that Canada has i major responsibility to make its views knowi and to exert the strongest pressure it can bring to bear to prevent the United States fron taking any step which will bring us an; degree closer to a general war. The ministe: in his statement on Thursday and in hi; speech of yesterday and today has not madi it clear that that has been done either ii respect of the new policy already announcet with regard to Formosa or in respect of thi new policies which are being actively con sidered by the leadership of the Republicai administration. I referred to them before the blockading of the China coast, the active support of the Chiang Kai-shek forces in ai effort to invade the mainland. These anc other policies were openly and stronglj advocated by President Eisenhower and hi; supporters during the presidential electioi campaign.
I say that in all these matters it is no sufficient for Canada to make its views know) after the event. Once bombs have bee) dropped it is too late to make representations Once a war has started it is too late to lodg protests. Canada must not accept the type o treatment which the minister indicated wa accorded in connection with the changes i) policy on Formosa. It is not good enoug] that Canada should be informed. Canad; must be consulted, and if she is not con suited then strong protests must be made The United States government must be toll ahead of time what policies we will suppor and what policies we will not.
That brings me to the representation which should now be made to Washington Canada, with the unanimous consent of ever; shade of political opinion represented in thi house, has taken its stand in the cold wa on the side of freedom. But we should alsi

External Affairs
lake it clear to the United States government that they cannot trade on the funda-lental unity which exists in the free world y counting on support from us in every dventure into which their political exigencies t home may lead them.
In particular it should be made very clear i the United States administration now that : they are contemplating policies which will ;ad to a reopening of the Chinese civil war, r which may lead to an extension of the lorean war, they will enter any such adven-ire alone as far as Canada is concerned. iTe should most strongly urge them not to do nything which would make it difficult for s to continue our close association with lem in the various collective security leasures to which we are both committed, i the fight for freedom Canada is prepared ) take her full part, but only on a basis E being consulted at every step. Being told : not good enough.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. peaker, I have always felt that the reference E the external affairs estimates to the stand-lg committee on external affairs prior to leir study in the house is a good arrange-ient. I think the results over the years have roved that it has been a time saver for arliament and that it also gives the members the committee an opportunity of sum-oning witnesses to give testimony, with the ;sult that far more real facts are brought it than otherwise would be the case. Con-squently it is a pleasure for me to support ie motion moved by the Secretary of State ir External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) yesterday. I also believe that the practice of using ie motion to launch a full-dress debate on eternal affairs is an excellent one. Each me the minister leads off with a statement Lat provides us with considerable back-round for a successful debate. His speech : yesterday and today was no exception in Lis respect. I wish to compliment the .inister on his desire each time he leads off i give the house a comprehensive picture of orld affairs and of the position which anada takes on major issues around the orld. However, I believe the speech he 5gan yesterday and finished today lacked imething of the comprehensiveness and ;tail that has characterized his efforts on inner occasions. There were many things ie minister did not mention, things that I msonally would have liked to hear.
I realize, of course-and I want to be )solutely fair in anything critical I say of Le minister-that he is in a little different jsition this year from the position he has ;en in other years, in that he is not only ;cretary of State for External Affairs in

Canada but he is also president of the United Nations general assembly. Naturally he cannot speak in this house merely as the minister of a department of the Canadian government. The general assembly has not finished its work this year. From what the minister told us yesterday it appears there are still quite a number of important and perhaps contentious matters to come before that body. So I suppose we could hardly have expected from the minister at this time a speech that carried his usual vigorous and straightforward statements.
At this point I should like to say that I did not have an opportunity of speaking on external affairs in December. That was the last occasion, I think, on which external affairs were discussed by this house. Consequently I would like to take this opportunity of congratulating the minister on his election as president of the general assembly. It is not only recognition of the minister's great ability; it is also a compliment to him and to the country which he represents. I have followed his work in New York about as closely as I could at this range, and I want to compliment him on the patience, restraint and skill he has exercised in the very difficult position which he accepted. I know something of what is entailed in the presidency of that body, having attended on two different occasions; and I can understand how easy it would be to lose one's sense of restraint and perhaps patience.
Now, Mr. Speaker, having performed what I consider to be a very pleasant task, I would like to pay particular attention to some of the matters which were mentioned by the minister yesterday and today, and maybe some matters he did not mention. I am not going to criticize the minister for not having gone into the new United States policy any farther than he did; not at all. But it might have been useful to the house to have heard something from him about the raising of the protection of the island of Formosa by the United States fleet. Perhaps at the end of this debate, when the minister replies, he may say something about it.
The minister said that in spite of the rejection by communist China and North Korea of the Korean armistice resolution, nevertheless he thinks the effort which was made in the assembly was of great significance and importance as a demonstration of unity and solidarity. I think, myself, that it was a tragedy that the Indian resolution did not receive unanimous endorsation. India's efforts to get that endorsation should be lauded, and those who have given their support to the Indian resolution have demonstrated that they do in reality want peace

in the world. I suppose, too, that after all these years of experience with Russia and her satellites we should know by this time that those countries will sabotage anything that the peace-loving nations try to do to establish peace in the world. I thoroughly agree with the minister when he said that the Indian resolution had the effect of showing very clearly where the will for peace now lies, by exposing the insincerity of communist declarations that they wish to end the war in Korea. I suppose that we must keep on trying very patiently although it does get somewhat discouraging to try to deal with thugs when we are wearing only kid gloves.
Now I would like to mention briefly the decision of the economic and social committee to recommend a $25 million grant for technical assistance to underdeveloped countries. We think that is a very worthwhile contribution. While it may be looked on as too little in the light of present circumstances, I would like to emphasize my belief that the best help we can possibly render to the underdeveloped countries and underprivileged people of the world is that kind of help which will make it possible for them to help themselves. When we are inclined to criticize smaller contributions for, let us say, technical assistance, we should keep that feature in mind. I did take considerable satisfaction out of the fact that the economic and social council had proposed that $25 million grant and that the committee had decided to pass on the recommendation to the general assembly. I am hoping that when we next hear from the minister he will be able to tell us that the assembly has considered the recommendation favourably and arranged to make the grant. Technical assistance, let me repeat, is one of the best ways of helping underdeveloped nations.
At one point in his speech the minister said, and I quote from page 1849 of Hansard of February 11:
For the past months we in Canada, and indeed the people of the whole world, have followed with mounting interest the constitutional and democratic processes of the United States in connection with the choice of a federal administration hy the people of the United States.
That is the end of the quotation I wish to use. It is only natural that all the people whom the minister speaks about, in this country and elsewhere, would be keenly interested in the United States elections; but I did think that at different times during the campaign there were altogether too many Canadians in rather high positions who were quite outspoken in their support of the Democratic administration as against the Republican party and its bid for office. It occurred
External Affairs
to me at the time, when I read some of the statements that were being made, that we certainly were not laying a very good foundation for happy relationships with the new government in the United States if it happened to be a Republican government. I think we have to be careful of some things especially when, as the minister emphasized later on in his speech, we are so closely associated with our neighbours to the south and will have to do business in pretty close association with them for many years to come.
The minister paid tribute to Mr. Truman, the former president of the United States, stating that Canadians owe him much. I believe that every man should be given his just measure of credit for the things he has done and for the efforts he has made on behalf of humanity. Consequently, in so far as Mr. Truman did meet international challenges during the years he occupied the presidential office, I join with the minister in paying tribute. But, Mr. Speaker, when the full history of these times is written, when all of 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. 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, may have been made in good faith; but the very best anyone can say is that they indicated a most serious lack oi foresight and judgment on the part of those two presidents. It may have been that they listened too much to unsound advice from men like Alger Hiss, but they will not or that account be able to escape the judgment of history.
President Eisenhower found it necessary tc tell the United States people and the world in his inaugural address that his administration would not be bound by certain secrel agreements reached between the Democratic administration and Russia. It is true, of course, that the President did not indicate specifically what those agreements were, bu' it would not be very difficult for us to guesi what he had in his mind.
This brings to my mind the fact that wher I returned from Europe in 1948 I was invitee to speak at various places across the domin ion, and I told some of my audiences ther about strange things which I had seen anc which I had learned had arisen out of the Yalta or Potsdam agreements. I expressec then my conviction that there had beer perfidy in high places, and that those whe held in their hands the destinies of million: of people in the world must have allowec

External Affairs
themselves to be unduly influenced by perfidious men who had infiltrated into high official positions where they could make their influence felt quickly.
At that time I was ridiculed by certain sections of the Canadian press for having the temerity to say such a thing. Perhaps my stand then, Mr. Speaker, was to some extent vindicated by what the President said about secret agreements in his inaugural address on January 20. He said that there have been altogether too many secret agreements over the years. To some of these doubtless can be attributed the state of chaos we have today. President Eisenhower, while he was president of Columbia university, is reported on one occasion to have said he hoped no future president of the United States would hold in his hand the power of bringing on wars.
In his speech yesterday the minister said something about our relationship with the United States. He declared in forceful terms that it is desirable that the Canadian voice in international affairs should be frank and clear, and in a recognizable Canadian accent. He said also that there should be the greatest harmony among that voice and the other members of the chorus, especially the leader -the leader being the United States. I look upon this as a sound and sensible statement. But let me say to the minister that I hope in our desire that our voice be in harmony with that of the leader, we do not yield too much in the effort. The United States recognizes in Canadians a quality that they admire very much, because all too often they have not got it. I was very pleased to see in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen a short dispatch from Washington by the Reuters news agency headed "Rely on Canada for Realism". I should like to put this little dispatch on the record because it illustrates what I started out to say:
The Washington Post says today the United States can usually rely on Canada tor realism in Eoreign affairs as well as plain speaking when the occasion demands it.
"It is significant that President Eisenhower's state of the union message, particularly the passage on Formosa, aroused in Canada little of the uneasi-less reported from parts of Europe," it adds in a leading article.
This does not mean Canada would support a onilateral blockade of China by the United States, out it does mean she would be sympathetic with i carefully thought-out plan to break the Korean ieadlock, the newspaper says.
"It is important for the United States to culti-/ate a close understanding (with Canada), not only through consultation on foreign affairs, but ilso through expediting such other matters of common concern as customs simplification and the 3t. Lawrence seaway bill."
I again express the view that in all our -elations with our good friends in the United

States we should be realistic and vigorous, and not be afraid to talk up to them when we feel we ought to do so. Let us continue to be realistic, I say, and let us always have the courage to stand up to the United States for what we believe to be right, even if we might be a little out of harmony with the general chorus; always realizing, of course, that the people of the United States are our friends and we have great admiration for them and for their wonderful country.
In the United States there is a great need for realism in trading relations. I do not believe the average citizen of the United States, let alone Canada, fully realizes what has been happening in that country over the past 30 years. There has been a conscious and persistent effort to make the United States economy self-sufficient. Some years ago the United States took over the leadership from Germany in the field of substitutes for such things as jute, mica, camphor, cryolite and many other things one could name. In so doing they have thrown a monkey wrench into the gears of the economies of other nations. I do not mean to say they have done so consciously at all. We are not blaming the people of the United States for the marvellous things they have done in their economy. I think the important thing is to understand what has been done, and then adjust our own thinking to these facts.
We do believe, though, that it is essential that the United States realize how important it is to make every effort to balance her trade with the rest of the world. We feel that way because in no other way could the other nations hope to get the dollars with which to buy what they need from the United States. I support the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in their timely reminders of the past few days to our friends in the United States about their trade practices. Just here I feel that I should like to voice one warning. In the development of our future trade relations with the United States, I believe we have to be especially careful about the conservation of our own resources. We have not paid nearly enough attention to this phase of our relationship in the past.
Now I should like to say a few words about Korea. The minister has said that the most recent attempt in the United Nations assembly to end the war in Korea has failed, but efforts to that end must not stop. He declared also that 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 the hostilities by peaceful negotiation. He said that it follows from this that our general attitude in the United Nations general assembly and elsewhere is to support proposals designed to facilitate an armistice agreement, and to oppose proposals which in our judgment would impede such an armistice.
On the specific question of the prisoner-of-war exchange, I believe Canada and the United Nations took the only reasonable stand that could possibly be taken. I agree entirely with the minister on that point; but I should like to say just a word now on the general situation in Korea and the United Nations policy in connection with the whole tragic episode. When I spoke on the same subject, I think it was on October 22, 1951, I said that we believed every effort should be made to work out an armistice in Korea, and that nothing should be left undone to bring about the cessation of hostilities in that country. At the same time I indicated that the United Nations should lose no time in laying down a policy which would make possible the early termination of the war in Korea by military or other action if armistice negotiations did fail.
It was my view then that the military effort of the United Nations should not be limited to the country in which the aggression takes place. I stated further that when the United Nations decided to take action against an aggressor nation the area of their activity should be limited to nothing less than the area used by the aggressor nation or nations for the concentration of troops and supplies and as a jumping off place for the continuation of aggression. I agree with General MacArthur in that regard. The general was later relieved of his command, if you recall, by President Truman. Moreover, I took the stand then that when we had the communists on the ropes, we should knock them out.
Well, almost a year and a half of further see-saw fighting and armistice negotiations have taken place since then. The situation for us-I am speaking of United Nations- has deteriorated. Our enemies are in a much stronger position in Korea now than ever they were. Many of our people have become discouraged under the UN's hopeless policy of a limited war for an unlimited time. What is worse, a good many Canadians have been led by some periodicals to believe that the policy of a limited war for an unlimited time is being used as a safety valve against unemployment and depression in the western countries. On one occasion I quoted such a statement from U.S. News and World Report. While it may be an unfair statement that
External Affairs
the policy is being followed as a safety valv against unemployment and possible depres sion, it is something that is being said; an of course the people are always affected b those things that are printed in the periodical; How long can we hold the people stead under the kind of policy which the UN i following in Korea?
By resolution, may I remind you, th United Nations declared that China is a aggressor. When I say that I should lik gently to remind the hon. member for Var couver East (Mr. Maclnnis) that a blockad of the Chinese coast would be perfectly justi fied under those circumstances; I refer to th situation under which she has been declare an aggressor. I ask this question: Wh should we or any other country allow wa materials to be moved and shipped to Chines ports, to be thrown at our troops in Korea That is something the hon. member for Var couver East did not consider. Let me ju; say one thing further. When he quotes th Financial Post to support his stand, may say that I should imagine the Financial Poi might be in favour of limited war for a unlimited time. Perhaps that thought did n( occur to him.
However, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that b resolution the United Nations declared th: China is an aggressor. But at the same tirr UN officials would not let MacArthur bom Manchurian bases because they said entailed too much risk. I should think th: the time to think about risk would ha\ been before the United States led the Unite Nations into Korea in the first place, should like to ask a question for the cor sideration of all hon. members. What woul we Canadians think if Russia should attac Canada and the rest of the world said tl war against the Russians should be fought i Canada? I say that the war against tl Russian aggressors in that case should 1 fought in Russia or wherever it would 1 possible to get at and destroy the source i their aggressive military strength. But : many today in top UN positions are sayir that the Korean war must be fought sole in Korea, the very country we say we a: trying to liberate. I mention these thinj because I maintain that we must change oi policy and get one that will make it possib to terminate the Korean debacle and then rehabilitate that most unfortunate wa shredded country.
I was criticized in 1951 when I said agreed with some of MacArthur's views c Korean policy. Since then I remind ho: members that there have been two Unite Nations commanders who have led tl United Nations armies there, and both them have been retired. On the occasic

External Affairs
i the retirement of General Van Fleet just re other day, he is reported to have made ome rather startling statements to the press, 'hat was on the eve of his farewell to his [DOT]oops. I should just like to quote briefly :om what General Van Fleet said as jported in the Christian Science Monitor nder date of February 10:
Van Fleet said the allies lost two chances for ctory in Korea, disclosed his own most heart-laking decisions as commanding general, and gave hat he feels are the two greatest achievements of le eighth army under his leadership.
A little bit later in the article, in answer ) a question that was put to him by some ewspapermen, this is what the report states: Q-If there have been lost opportunities in Korea, hat do you feel was the most serious?
A-When the communists over extended them-lves in May, 1951. When we broke communist :fence in fall of 1951.
Van Fleet revealed that he feels that the nited Nations had the communists on the >pes twice during 1951, but failed to deliver le knock-out blow. The reason appears to 5 that the Far East command refused to msent to delivering that blow. In this :port that came from Seoul, dated February ), from which I just read a moment ago, should also like to quote this paragraph: Authoritative sources say that for more than a :ar Van Fleet has not been able to launch a single ittalion attack without consent from the Far ist command in Tokyo-and that Van Fleet him-If was heartsick when UN and U.S. decisions dee held him back from closing with the reds r decisive battles in 1951.
Mr. Speaker, a general of Van Fleet's ature would not make such statements and iplications without good reason nor without thorough on-the-spot knowledge of the facts ' the situation. Added significance is given Van Fleet's views, in my judgment, by ,eir close similarity to General MacArthur's vn views.
I mention these things to underscore what said previously, namely that the United ations must quickly adopt policies for iccessfully terminating the Korean struggle that country can then be rehabilitated as on as possible. A limited war for an llimited period of time is not the kind of ing people can remain united under for :ry long.
We must remember that almost three years ive passed since the first act of aggression, ae minister himself this very day told us at communist world strategy is to drain vay the strength of the free nations by rery means they can. A policy of limited ar for an unlimited time is the very best ay of letting them do it. Just take a look the over-all casualty figures and the costs the Korean war to date, and I think you ill get a revealing picture of how the 
United Nations are being weakened as a consequence of these nearly three years of half-hearted conflict on our part and of cunning attrition on the part of the communists. The signs of a stiffening of United States foreign policy since the change in administration gives the best hope of the adoption of a realistic policy in Korea.
The minister gave us today-and I am thankful for it-a report on NATO and the European defence community. I was glad that he indicated some of the real problems which the European nations are facing in their efforts to build defensive strength against the great dangers that are hovering over them. We ought to know all that we can learn about those problems. The more we know, the less inclined I think we would be to criticize.
I think we must be especially sympathetic with France. She finds herself torn, as the minister said, between present threats and dangers on the one hand, and hopes for the future and memories of the past on the other. It is only natural, I suggest, that France would have many misgivings about seeing Germany rearmed. It is only reasonable that France would consider long and carefully the risks she runs by throwing her whole strength into the European defence effort. Much of her strength has been sapped through the fighting in Indo-China. The minister pointed out that 90,000 casualties had been suffered by the French in that continent, 40,000 of whom were dead. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is no mean loss to any country.
France has plenty of trouble. I wonder sometimes whether the United Nations have given that country the help and the encouragement she deserves. I recall that when the conflict first broke out in Indo-China there was not very much encouragement to France from any source, and particularly from the United Nations. I am very happy to see that the sympathy is rising.
I cannot think of any possible alternative to the European defence community, if Europe is to be saved. As a consequence I think Canada should do everything possible to help the countries of Europe achieve their goal. It should stand shoulder to shoulder with them in building a united defence for freedom. I do not think any one of us would want to see Canada not shoulder her responsibilities. I am satisfied too that if the people of our country know the facts they will be prepared to. make the right decisions and stand behind the government in any position it takes to bring about peace in this world.


Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I intend to direct practically all my remarks to the situation in the Pacific. No doubt the minister will not be surprised by that decision. However I am sure he will forgive it in the case of a member who is lucky enough to live on the Pacific slope, even though in that part of Canada we are closer to this very serious situation in Asia than our fellow Canadians in the other provinces.


Mr. Knowles:: You live there, but you spend most of your time here.


Howard Charles Green: Unfortunately. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the most important fact in world affairs today is that the United States has adopted a new Asian policy. Some ten days ago President Eisenhower announced this policy which is designed to put the communists, both Chinese and Russian, in a position where they and not the people of the free nations are the ones who will be worried about what the next move will be in world affairs.
In other words this new policy is an attempt to seize the initiative from the communists, and from now on the United States apparently proposes to call the tune in Asia. This new policy seems to be extremely popular in the United States. One can understand that, because it is in line with the character of the United States people. In any event we can take it for granted that the policy will be pursued in the days that lie ahead.
How does Canada fit into this picture? What stand will she take? In the first place, may I point out that it seems obvious to me that the Canadian government is floundering, not knowing whether to approve or disapprove of this new Asian policy. The minister gives every indication that he is still thinking in terms of the former United States policy, which was one of merely holding the line in Korea. If he will recall, he pointed out yesterday in the course of his remarks that aggression should be fought on the ground where it was committed. That raises the question in one's mind whether the United Nations can only fight an aggressor on the ground he chooses, because after all the aggressor is the one who chooses where the fighting is to begin.
The minister also said that while it may be tempting to hit an aggressor in new places, we must always remember that he might hit us back. Well of course that is perfectly true; but I do not believe that is the new policy as announced by the United States government; rightly or wrongly, such a policy has now gone by the boards. In any event, yesterday the minister gave us
External Affairs
no clear-cut statement of where the government stands on this new Asian policy. ] believe that the Canadian people, as well as the members of the house, are entitled tc such a statement.
Perhaps there is a responsibility on hon. members to indicate their own views and ir so far as it is possible the views of the people whom they represent.
Of course I am not in a position to be able to indicate with great accuracy wha' the people of Vancouver-Quadra think of this new United States Asian policy, but I believe Canadians on the west coast approve of the policy so far as it has developed to date They might not approve of further steps, bu' there appears to have been very little opposition to the policy as it has been announcec by President Eisenhower.
Some weight should be given to the fac that the two great evening newspapers ir Vancouver have approved of the President's stand. Certainly there has been no indication by them that they believe he has made a mistake, and I noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis), ir his excellent speech, with much of which ! did not agree, did not quote from the press of our home province of British Columbia
Then I believe it should be pointed ou also that the Canadian government in this in stance was informed but not consulted bj the United States. It was informed, quits late in the day at that. The Prime Ministes (Mr. St. Laurent) made the first reference tc this new policy in the house on February 2 the day it was announced, and his remark: will be found at page 1521 of Hansard. Hs said:
Late Friday last,-
The announcement was made on Monday
-the Canadian embassy was informed about ths forthcoming statement to be made by Presiderc Eisenhower, but it was not suggested that W( should express our views about it.
That reminds me of the policy of thi: government before the war under the leader ship of the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King, when he declared that in so far a: the United Kingdom and the other nations o: the commonwealth were concerned thej could inform Canada of policies but thej could not consult us because if Canada weri consulted then she might be under sorm obligation. We are now having this same problem in reverse. I hope the Canadiai government would prefer to be consulted bi the United States rather than just informed as was the case last week.
This action has all the earmarks of Canad; being dragged along by the United States and that situation is not good enough. I

External Affairs
:loes not exist in the North Atlantic area because there we find consultation between members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which seems to be working out very well. Surely our aim as Canadians should be to bring about a similar situation in the Pacific; to insist on some arrangement so that we will be consulted and not merely nformed concerning decisions made for that irea.
Canada is a Pacific nation just as much is she is an Atlantic nation. The Pacific irea is the most dangerous in the world ioday. War has actually broken out in Korea, Indo-China and the Malay peninsula. Obviously the Pacific is the weak spot of the :ree nations. Some way must be found for hem to work together in that area.
The present government of Canada has lone very little to bring about such a iystem of consultation. The ministers, from he Prime Minister down, seem to be very ittle interested in working out any such plan. The minister of external affairs yesterday aughed it off, laughed about a Pacific security pact and said something facetious ibout the member for Vancouver-Quadra leing glad to have some kind of a statement. Then the minister went on to repeat all the logeys he has been raising for several years.
I was amazed at the statement made by he Prime Minister with regard to the Pacific when he returned from the commonwealth :onference in London. He appeared in the louse for the first time on December 15. On hat day I asked him the following question, o be found on page 646 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of he Prime Minister. A news dispatch over the reek end indicates that the United Kingdom is iow being given a voice in Pacific defence, pre-umably by becoming a party to the Australian-few Zealand-United States treaty. What steps, if ny, has the Canadian government taken to gain he same position for Canada?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
I did not have an opportunity to discuss the 'acific pact, in any way, with anyone whatsoever, irhile I was away.
There were discussions between other nembers of the commonwealth with regard o the situation in the Pacific, because in the iress of December 15 there was published a tatement from the office of the Prime /linister of the United Kingdom reading as ollows:
The prime ministers of the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand took the opportunity, rovided by the commonwealth economic confer-nce, to discuss the situation in the Pacific and the roblems of southeast Asia. They reached com-lete understanding with regard to certain funda-lental propositions which will, in due course, be he subject of friendly discussions with their allies, he United States.

Apparently the Prime Minister of Canada was not sufficiently interested in the Pacific to take part in any discussions on that subject during the commonwealth conference of last fall.
Another example of this lack of interest by the government is the attitude of the minister of external affairs toward the Australia-New Zealand-United States treaty, known as the ANZUS treaty. As he pointed out yesterday, there are bilateral and trilateral pacts in the Pacific. There is one between the United States and Japan; another between the United States and the Philippines, and a third between the United States, Australia and New Zealand. He said also that there was a treaty between Canada and the United States, and I propose to deal with that in a few minutes. There is a difference there, because I suggest that it is not in the same category as the three other treaties.
I interjected a question and asked whether Canada had asked to join the ANZUS treaty, to become a party to that treaty; the minister answered that they had had a meeting on August 7, 1952 and at that time it had been intimated that no one else was wanted. I then asked him whether we had asked to join before that date and in reply he got pretty far off the beam when he said that we had obtained quite adequate information on which to base the policy which we have followed. It seems to me perfectly clear that Canada has not made a very energetic attempt to crash the gate of this ANZUS treaty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can deal with that point if the hon. member is not satisfied with my statement of yesterday. I can tell him at once that it was made quite clear to us before the meeting last August that the extension of that pact to include any other country, including Canada, would not be welcomed at that time.


Howard Charles Green: The minister has never yet given any indication that Canada had tried very hard to become a party to that treaty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Gate crashing is not good diplomacy.


Howard Charles Green: Well, there has never been
any indication that the present government even wishes to crash the gate. This is a very serious question on the west coast because we have always had the closest relations with our sister nations, Australia and New Zealand. Before the war Australia was our third best customer, and now she is away down the list. We on the Pacific coast want to work just as closely as we possibly can with the Australians and the New Zealanders.

It may be that the ANZUS treaty is not the proper kind of treaty upon which to build up some scheme whereby Canada will be consulted about these decisions in the Pacific, but the minister suggests no alternative. Perhaps the best plan would be this new strategic co-ordinating committee.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the hon. member would
like me to do so, I will suggest immediately an alternative which is being followed, although it may not be one that he would consider quite satisfactory. All the countries that are engaged in the Korean war meet at least every week in Washington to exchange views and to hear from each other what our policies are in that region.


Howard Charles Green: It is a strange thing that
when it came to a drastic revision of policy such as that regarding Formosa, this committee in Washington appears to have known nothing about it. The first thing that happened was that the Canadian embassy was informed three days before the announcement was made as to what was to be done by the United States, and was not asked for any suggestions.
There is the strategic co-ordinating committee to be set up with headquarters in Singapore. I asked the minister about it yesterday and he said he would give further details at a later date. The first time that plan came to my attention was in a press dispatch from Paris to be found in the Vancouver Province of the 2nd of January of this year. The dispatch indicated that a permanent allied military planning staff would be established in Singapore early this year to co-ordinate plans for the security of southeast Asia. The dispatch went on to say:
These sources said the United States government has finally agreed in principle to the establishment of a joint southeast Asian defence planning body composed of American, British, French, Australian and New Zealand military experts.
On January 10, 1953 another press dispatch appeared in the Vancouver Province which confirmed that a decision had been made to set up a council to co-ordinate anticommunist operations in the Far East. The dispatch went on to say:
Britain, as the commonwealth power, will invite Australia and New Zealand to join the council, whose headquarters will probably be in Singapore.
What I should like the minister to explain is whether Canada has asked to be a member of that council and, if not, why not? Such a council may be the means of bringing about a situation whereby Canada will be consulted on decisions made for the Pacific area. We must remember that in Asia the communists are working from within a circle. The free
External Affairs
nations are working from without, and i1 must be obvious to everyone that there should be co-ordination of anti-communisi operations. Canada, as the nation with the fourth largest number of troops in Korea should certainly be a member of that council
The minister suggested yesterday that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has some responsibility for helping the French because of the war going on in Indo-China. Hi: remarks are found at page 1855 of Hansard for yesterday. He said:
In a resolution adopted December 17, 1952, the North Atlantic council expressed its wholehearted admiration for these efforts and acknowledged thaf the resistance of the free nations of southeast Asia was in fullest harmony with the aims anc ideals of the Atlantic community, and agreed thaf the campaign waged by French union forces ir Indo-China merited support from NATO members Indeed there is a close strategic relationship no1 only between events in Korea and Indo-China, bu1 also between events in Indo-China and in westerr Europe, because events in Indo-China have a verj important bearing on France's contribution to the defence of western Europe.
That would appear to indicate an exten sion of the responsibility of NATO to include what is going on in Indo-China. It is hare to visualize that as having been intendec in the original plans when NATO was firs set up, but I am not quarrelling with the decision. That may be a way out of ou: difficulty in the Pacific.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should point out at once that there was no such decision made as ; result of the resolution which the hon. mem ber has read. There was no such decisior to extend the obligations of the NATO pact Such a decision could only be made b; amendment of the pact.


Howard Charles Green: Well, it seems to be out o line with the terms of the NATO pact There certainly has been the undertaking o some responsibility to help the French ii their efforts in Indo-China. Mind you, I di not see how, if NATO is to be extended ii that way, it can be considered any longe as a regional pact, but I am not quarrellinj with the policy. I merely point out tha this may be one way of getting Canada oi the right track in so far as the Pacific i concerned, namely by having the obligation of NATO extended to that area.
Then I should like to say a word abou the United States-Canada treaty which th Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr Pearson) seems to put in the same class a the United States-Japan treaty, the ANZUi treaty and the United States-Philippine treaty. As I understand the treaty, it i for the defence of this continent and is o no help whatever in so far as policies fo Asia are concerned. Obviously it does no

External Affairs
:all for consultation between Canada and the Jnited States on Asiatic questions because here was no such consultation with regard ;o the new Asian policy adopted by the Jnited States. As a matter of fact I doubt whether the Canada-United States treaty ;oes much further than the NATO treaty tself which provides that if there is an ittack on any one of the member nations, fither in Europe or North America, all the [DOT]est are obligated to come to its protection.
To my mind the minister seems to have nade one excuse after another as to why here should not be a pact of some sort in he Pacific. He bubbles over with enthu-iiasm over NATO, but he is full of doubts ibout any such plan for the Pacific. Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, Canada is being in-!ormed but not consulted about decisions con-:erning the Pacific area.
There is grave concern on the west coast >f Canada about the Pacific because what lappens there may be a matter of life and leath for Canadians living on that coast. This is no theoretical matter. We believe hat a policy is needed in Asia and that Canada should be in a position to exert ler full influence. I have here an editorial rom the Vancouver Province of February 3, :ntitled "A Policy is needed in Asia". I will juote one paragraph which I think sums up >ur views:
The time is, in fact, past due for the west to idopt a more realistic policy in Asia. The need or a co-ordinated policy, in face of the long irganized, centrally directed communist strategy las long been self-evident. The piecemeal effort o date has left the considerable anti-communist ilements on the Asiatic mainland sitting ducks for he communists.
I suggest in conclusion that it is high time he Canadian government demanded a full mice in Pacific affairs. *


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you o call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Donald Methuen Fleming: It is
ilways a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to welcome he motion introduced annually by the Secreary of State for External Affairs (Mr. 3earson) to refer the estimates of his depart-nent to the standing committee on external iffairs. I have always regarded that as a rery healthy procedure, and one that has ed to a wider measure of participation in he discussion of external affairs as well as, I think, a broader understanding of the

problems of external affairs on the part of members of this house than would otherwise be possible. The committee, under the able and benevolent chairmanship of the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), is one to which all members regard it as a pleasure to belong, and to participate in its discussions.
The extent of the review of Canada's external relations by the minister yesterday and today, as well as the breadth and scope of the speech delivered this afternoon by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), stressed and underlined the extent to which Canada is interested in virtually all that takes place in all parts of the globe. The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) said in some speeches last summer that today it is virtually impossible for Canada not to become involved in a major war, should one break out. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the course of Canada's interest in world affairs and the extent of her commitments in various theatres of the world have led to the result that when we debate external affairs in this house we range virtually over the entire globe.
The world situation today seems to be, at least through the eyes of the west, a matter of balancing strength against dangers, of pitting the resources of the free western world against the needs. The resources are still not adequate to meet the needs. As Mr. Churchill said several years ago, to attempt to be strong everywhere is to be strong nowhere. We hope we are moving in the direction of increasing our strength so that in time the strength of the free western world may be reasonably adequate to meet the challenge of our needs. As yet we are far from having reached the point where our strength is adequate to meet that challenge.
It is important, in the first place, that we should recognize the nature and source of the danger. Literally there is one primary source and only one, and that, of course, is the Kremlin with its policies of world domination. We ought to recognize that danger for what it is, naked, unabashed aggression; a cold, calculating, ruthless attempt to subvert freedom the whole world over. The Kremlin is deaf to all appeals to honour and to humane considerations. I do not think we are going to come very much closer to a satisfactory solution in Korea or in any of the other troubled parts of the world today by thinking we can discuss this matter in terms of appeals to humane considerations or honour on the part of those against whom we are pitted in this cold war. Wishful thinking is going to do us no good in influencing those against whose aggressive intent we are in process of becoming arrayed. They just do not think our way. Their thought processes are entirely different from ours.

We should recognize also that what we see unfolding today is a world plan. Lightning may be striking in different parts of the world, but when the lightning of communism strikes today it is part of a world-wide plan, whether it be armed aggression in Korea; armed aggression in Indo-China, Burma, Malaya; the cold war in other parts of the world; persecution of Jewish leaders in the European countries behind the iron curtain, or the severing of diplomatic relations with the state of Israel with a view to stirring up trouble in the Arab world. These are all facets of the unfolding world plan of aggression directed from the Kremlin.
Of course the advantage of a single direction of a world plan lies with the communists, as well as the advantage of the initiative. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think we will have accomplished something in the western world if we do recognize the nature and source of this danger and then gird ourselves to meet it.
Beneficent international institutions seem to develop slowly. That seems to be one of the characteristics of such institutions. The United Nations, NATO, the point four plan, the Marshall plan, the Schuman plan, the policy of containment-these all have been characterized by slow growth. That is not to say that their growth has lacked strength because it was slow; nevertheless it seems to be a characteristic of international institutions of the beneficent type.
What may be said to be the focal points of danger today? What is the need of the western world where the pressure of communist aggression is strongest? It seems to me, sir, that whether you look at Europe or whether you look at Asia, the danger is extremely grave today. I suppose in Asia our answer to the threat and the present dangers there will lie in our hope of resisting armed aggression in Korea and in the countries of southeast Asia, in strengthening a friendly Japan, and in our hope that India, great country that she is, will see her way clear in the days that lie before us to take a clearer and stronger line in recognizing and confronting the communist menace in Asia.
In Europe the need for unity of the western nations is extremely urgent. It is because of the importance of strength in western Europe, and in particular the need for a stronger measure of unity between France and Germany, that I should like to share with the house some impressions that it was my privilege to form during a visit to western Europe last October. This offered an opportunity to measure the developments in western Europe in the four years since one had had a previous opportunity, along with
External Affairs
certain members of this house, to visit th principal countries of western Europe.
Western Europe is making a strong come back. Let no one underestimate the exten of the economic comeback of western Europe Western Germany today has a greater pro duction than the entire pre-war Hitler Ger many. France today has a greater productioi than pre-war France. Britain today has ; greater production than pre-war Britair These are all factors of high importance ii balancing the scales against the threat o Soviet aggression. Our economic resources ar in pawn, Mr. Speaker, in this world struggl just as much as is our military migh expressed in terms of rearmament.
Germany today presents a fascinating pic ture, because the recovery of Germany toda; is almost entirely due to one factor, and on factor alone, namely hard work on the par of the German people. Today in the Ruh you can see the extent of the industria comeback of Germany. Travelling througl the country you have an opportunity o gauging the strength of the recovery of agri cultural Germany. We would do well ti recognize that the recovery of Western Ger many is a fact of world significance today Whether we like it or not, Germany is today and is going to be in the future to an increas ing degree, a factor in world politics. Then are many who do not realize the extent o the re-emergence of Western Germany oi the international scene. I think such peopL are going to have to change their manne of thinking before long.
Recognition of the importance of German; so far as the United States is concerned ma; perhaps be measured in this fact alone Before the recent change of administratioi at Washington the United States establish ment at Bonn, the capital of Western Ger many, included 4,000 civilians housed in huge buildings in that old university city.
Berlin has again come to the fore in thi news dispatches within the past day or two We are told that there is a Russian threa of the renewal of the land blockade whicl some of us remember from our visit in 1948 when Great Britain and the United States, ii one of the great answers of free and cour ageous peoples to a challenge, devised the airlift, a marvel of organization, to mee that attempt of the communists to drive then out of Berlin. In Berlin I had the oppor tunity of going behind the iron curtain anc seeing something of the eastern sector of tha city once again.
In the western sectors, Berlin has made great strides of progress in the past fom years. The city is brighter. The people loot better fed. They are more cheerful looking

External Affairs
'hey are calmer and, I think, more vigorous joking than they were then. There is still
picture of ruin on almost every hand in Serlin. The effects of the aerial and land lombardment are to be seen yet throughout be entire city, but substantial strides have ieen made in the rebuilding of the German apital on the western side.
There are not many pockets of unemployment in northwestern Europe today but, Jr. Speaker, West Berlin is one of them, n that population of less than 2,500,000 ieople there are 300,000 unemployed. The eason there are unemployed in Western lerlin is that it has been the policy of the lussians-who, after all, control the land ccess to the city-to prevent the free xchange of commerce between the West ierliners and the other Germans. Only 19 rains a day are permitted by the Russians o enter West Berlin. You can see today, in lying over that part of the city, two shiny ailway tracks while the other tracks in the ailway yards are covered with rust.
The horrors of Russian occupation in Western Berlin have not been forgotten. Eastern Berlin behind the iron curtain iresents an interesting contrast. When we of he western world put up flags on buildings ve usually put one flag on a flagpole or mast. Jot so these communists. When they go ibout hanging flags they literally cover a >uilding with them. In Eastern Berlin today rou can see block after block with the great luildings covered with the red flags with the lammer and the sickle, great red streamers md red bunting. In almost every block as rou pass through the eastern sector you can ee the picture of one Josef Stalin either 'rinning or glowering at you, depending on *our point of view. There are also pictures if the communist leaders from the other ommunist countries, such as Mao Tse-tung if China, Gottwald of Czechoslovakia and he others.
There is no doubt at all about the efforts if the Russians and of such Germans of East Berlin as have made themselves tools of he Russians, to communize the eastern part if the city. They have introduced com-nunist shops, the Handelsorganization, com-nonly known as HO shops. They have done ine thing that I think is worth mentioning oday because I think it is going to be used jefore long in the western world as a means if communist propaganda. There is in course if construction on a famous street that has jeen renamed Stalinstrasse in East Berlin vhat will become one of the largest housing projects in the world. It is in various stages >f construction. There are some finished
blocks, and others ranging all the way from that state to blocks in which the rubble left from the air blitz is still lying around. I suppose the communists will attempt to picture to the world that this housing project is typical of what goes on behind the iron curtain.
We will know better, Mr. Speaker, than to believe that this one isolated project, which will be used as a communist showpiece for propaganda purposes, is typical. It is interesting to note how that kind of building can be erected. Apart from people who would labour normally upon it there is, of course, a great deal of "invited" labour spent on it. Artisans and people of that kind are invited to come and donate a holiday's work or a Sunday's work, and if there is any demurring they are asked to consider whether it is a good thing for them or their families for it to be known that they withheld their labour from this government project. "Thou are not Caesar's friend" has been used to good advantage as a threat from the days of Pontius Pilate to this very day.
I think it is worth mentioning also, Mr. Speaker, one's impression of the police in East Berlin. We hear a great deal of them. I saw a number of them. I saw them on traffic duty; I saw a truckload of them going by. I do not think there was one of them who could have been over 18 years of age. And if we hear reports of shooting incidents along the boundary that divides the Russian sector from the western sectors, I think we might ascribe it to the fact that firearms are placed in the hands of immature youths. And even in the case of those, Mr. Speaker, it is a fact that an average of about 45 to 50 of these police from the eastern side of Berlin are escaping every day over to the western sector, quite apart from that stream of escapees that is going on all the time, and now in increasing volume, from eastern Berlin and eastern Germany into the western sector of Berlin as the communist persecution of the Jewish population becomes daily more acute. When they reach western Berlin of course their only means of escaping further to western Germany-for after all Berlin is a hundred miles or more from the nearest point of the western zones of occupation in Germany-is by air.
Sir, may I say something of France. Whatever else may be said, no one who knows Europe, or makes any attempt to study the situation in western Europe today, can think for one minute that western Europe can be strong unless France is strong. It would be well for the western world to bear in mind something of the sufferings of France, something of her losses in two great wars: a million and a half of her finest men killed in

the first great war; 600,000 in the second great war; four years and more of the horrors of nazi occupation in the second world war. These have left behind them privation, disturbance and in many cases weakness. But, Mr. Speaker, there are those today who insist on making of France demands that do not take account of this record of suffering to which the French people have been submitted.
In the course of his review yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) referred to Indo-China. The western world should understand what a drain that war in Indo-China has been upon French resources, both human and material. Mention was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon of France's losses in men in that war. Well, that has been a severe drain in these recent years on all of the resources of France. That portion of the French army which has been engaged in the warfare in Indo-China has indeed been the best part, the better half at times, of the French army. And if France has not been able to contribute to the garrisoning of central Europe as many men, as experienced an army, as the western world sometimes expects, it would be well to take account of the extent to which French armed might has been committed to the struggle in Indo-China.
And when we are talking about the demands we make upon France, sir, let us have this in mind also; that Dean Acheson himself, in testifying at Washington before a congressional committee something over a year ago, said that France's expenditure on the war in Indo-China up to that time had exceeded the help that she had received through Marshall aid. That was a statement he made in Washington something over a year ago.
What of the strength of communism in France? That is a matter that has given many people in the west much concern. I remember that in 1948 when the communists were rioting in France there was bloodshed, there were strikes, they were openly challenging authority. Well, it is a pleasure indeed, Mr. Speaker, to see satisfying evidence that the strength of communism in France is on the wane. There are many evidences of it. I mention but a few. The fact that 26 per cent of the French electorate in the general elections to the French assembly a year and a half ago voted for communist candidates should not be treated as evidence that 26 per cent of the French people are communists; far from it. The number of communist candidates elected to the French assembly in that election dropped from 180 to 100.
External Affairs
There has been a very great change also ir the communist strength in French organizec labour. It will be remembered that La Confederation Generale du Travail, the principal French labour organization, was under communist domination until a very great Frencl labour leader, who incidentally paid a visi to this country a year ago, Monsieur Leor Jouhaux, led the non-communists out of L< Confederation Generale du Travail into a nev organization.
There are internal divisions among com munists in France. Of course when interna divisions arise among communists in countrie: behind the iron curtain they do not last ver' long, because they have a way of disposing o: those whom they call deviationists; but in t free country like France those internal divi sions can arise.
This next fact struck me as one of grea importance. At this time, outside of a hand ful of able and popular leaders the commu nists do not have any men of first-class abilit' in the French assembly. Perhaps this is ; more striking evidence, Mr. Speaker. Thi circulation of L'Humanite, the communis daily, has fallen from a high mark of 500,001 copies per day to a circulation of somethini under 200,000 copies a day.
In Paris it was my privilege to talk to Lore Ismay, the secretary-general of NATO. Hi had some things to say about NATO tha struck me as being of interest to Canadians He drew attention to the fact that NATC after all is young; it has had the full glare o publicity directed upon it and, as he put it there are so many people who keep stirring u] the seed all the time to see if the plant i really growing, and keep pouring in wate: and stirring it up, looking all the time under neath the surface for evidence of growth Well, as he indicated to me, all free nation in NATO will contribute greatly to tin strength of NATO if leaders in public life ii all these countries will try to create on thi part of the people of their countries a broa< base of support for and good understandin; of NATO, its objects, its aims and its tasks
Just in passing, Mr. Speaker, participatioi by the United States in NATO can I think b illustrated by the fact that, as I was told the United States delegation and staff t NATO number 1,100, including three ambas sadors. The total staff of NATO when I wa there was some 250. Canada has a staff of 2: headed by a distinguished Canadian wit) ambassadorial rank.
I should like at this time to pay tribute t Mr. Arnold Heeney, formerly under-secre tary of state for external affairs, who assumei

External Affairs
le appointment as head of the Canadian delation to NATO about a year ago. I think Mr. [eeney is deserving of recognition, not only Dr his ability as a Canadian diplomat but for re sense of public service which he carries lto his duties. I think Canada can be very roud of such a representative.
It was my great privilege to visit the 27th lanadian infantry brigade at Hanover and to ave extended conversations there with Briga-ier Walsh, and also to see two of the units 1 training the following day. The Canadian 7th infantry brigade is filling a role quite ifferent from that filled by any other Cana-ian military force in history. This is a time f peace as far as we and Germany are con-erned. The brigade is not an occupation Dree; it is not part of the occupation forces i Germany. It was very difficult for the [anoverians to understand the unprecedented ole being filled by the Canadian armed forces i their midst, and there were some mis-nderstandings. Efforts have been made, and Dme success has attended those efforts, to lake the German people understand the role f the Canadians. That role is that of a arrison force located in central Europe to uard against the possibility of aggression com behind the iron curtain. This brigade * fully operational, and is located only 45 liles from the iron curtain straight down titler's excellent autobahn. The appearance f these troops is impressive. One could not ail to be proud of the Canadian troops as ne saw them at Hanover.
I just missed by a couple of hours being resent at the arrival of the R.C.A.F. squad-ons at Metz, but I had the opportunity of liking to those who were there. Those 67 abres arriving in perfect formation were iven a warm and enthusiastic reception by re French authorities, the NATO forces and iie press.
Of course when new airfields are built it oes mean dispossessing French peasants, 'he love of the French peasant for his soil s very deep indeed, and under those condi-ions it perhaps would not be a matter of urprise if there arose some local resentment at land being taken over for the con-truction of Canadian airfields. However,
was assured that the reception given to tie Canadians serving in the R.C.A.F. has een very warm and friendly.
I should like to mention one incident which
think illustrates something that we in this avoured part of the globe, far removed from he ravages of two world wars, fail adequately 0 appreciate. We are so accustomed to hinking of the arrival of Canadians as a ymbol of liberation and the occasion for

tumultuous expressions of joy that the incident related to me by Madame Vanier, the gifted wife of our distinguished Canadian ambassador at Paris, may be something of an eye-opener. She was speaking to a very intelligent French woman and told her of the arrival of the R.C.A.F. squadrons. Naturally, with no little pride, she expected her to react in a similar way and express thanksgiving and joy at the result. But the woman's eyes filled with tears and she said nothing. Such is the fear of war that grips France today.
After all, France has known the horror of nazi occupation, and she knew that horror for over four years. The spectre of Russian occupation haunts France. We have little appreciation in this country of what that means in the light of French experience.
I should like to say a word about the vexed question of German rearmament, based upon discussions which it was my privilege to have with some of the leading political figures in Britain, as well as in Paris and Germany.
I suppose if the Russians had not behaved as they have since the war no one would feel happy about the prospect of German rearmament. The experience we have had with an armed Germany led by the German general staff has not been such as to create in us any feeling of confidence or satisfaction over the prospect of German rearmament. Nevertheless some hard facts have emerged which it is no longer possible to overlook.
The load the British taxpayer is carrying and the drain upon British manpower, not only in the army of the Rhine but in the discharge of Britain's obligations all over the world, is so great that when the Britisher looks at Germany and sees British forces garrisoning Western Germany, sees that Germany has not yet been called upon to bear her share of the burden and responsibility of rearming, is it any wonder that he says, "Why is not Germany carrying her share of this load?"
France is weighed down with her struggles and her burdens. There is a continual drain on her resources because of the war in Indochina. But she looks at Germany with a different feeling because the recollection of three German invasions in the last 80 years is still very fresh in the minds of her people.
It is easy enough for us at this safe distance to make plans for western Europe, but it is not going to be an easy matter to fuse German, French and forces of other countries in western Europe into a European army. If it comes about, as we may well hope that in some form it will, it will be indeed a triumph of statesmanship and abundant evidence that we have entered upon a new era of co-operation and understanding.

The nationalist tradition is still very strong In the French army. Nationalism is still strong in France. The distrust of Germany in the light of the experience of the last 80 years is still strong.
It was the United States that first put forward the proposal for German rearmament because today Western Germany with a population of fifty million has the greatest available pool of manpower in western Europe. Mr. Schuman brought forward the idea of a European army with smaller German units fitted into it, as a compromise plan. That became the Schuman plan in regard to a European army. But a European army built upon the fusion of smaller units drawn from various countries is very different from a force built up of component national armies of various countries and serving under a supreme commander, such as we had in the latter part of the first great war and throughout most of the second world war.
Therefore we should not underestimate the difficulties that the nations of western Europe are facing in relation to this matter of German rearmament as part of the formation of a European army. It is to be hoped that something of that kind will come about, because except from a greater measure of unity in western Europe we may look in vain for that revival of strength in Europe, drawn from European sources, which is so necessary today in the face of the strength that Russia is mustering behind the iron curtain and in face of the political difficulties that exist at Washington in connection with the maintenance and continuance of United States aid.
Back of all this, Mr. Speaker, stands Britain-Britain which has carried such a burden, Britain which has undergone such privations not simply for her survival but for the peace and deliverance of all mankind. I hope that when people call upon Britain to carry a greater share of the load of the world's problems they will not forget what that land suffered during the war, the burden that land carried during the war and since. They are still bearing privations that are matched by few of the countries that enjoy today that measure of freedom and deliverance which Britain made such sacrifices to help win for them. Make no mistake about it, people have been writing Britain off for generations as though her best days were behind her. I am here, Mr. Speaker, to bear testimony to my belief that the best days of Britain lie before her, that no nation that has been called upon to fulfil the beneficent destiny for all mankind and for the freedom of mankind that Britain has been called upon to fulfil could fail in days like these.
External Affairs
If I had fear of the position of Britain now and of her coming back after all her difficulties I would indeed be pessimistic for the whole outlook of mankind, for the whole outlook of our free western way of life, But I believe, Mr. Speaker, that British leadership in the world today, being needed as much as ever it was before, will be forthcoming, and that with the continuance oi leadership of that kind and with the recognition by Washington, of which there is abundant proof, of the great responsibility that the United States carries in the world today, while the dangers are great, while there are many clouds upon the international horizon, free mankind, which values its freedom more than life, need not fear to meet this challenge of black, ruthless communism with determination, with courage and with confidence.


Mr. J. A. Bradeile (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker before I proceed with the main part of my remarks I want to thank the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) for the kind words he had to say about my activities as chairman of the external affairs committee It is very easy for me to extend those kind words to every member of our committee, tc every official of the department and to the minister of the Department of External Affairs in view of the co-operation they have always given in our work.
Before I proceed further, I also want tc extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson for the magnificent work he has done at the United Nations and for the honour he received last fall in being appointed presidenl of the general assembly. It was an honoui that was highly deserved indeed. We alsc know that any of the higher positions, ever that of secretary general of the United Nations, are within the reach of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I believe i1 would be in order for me to say that I believe the Canadian people would want him te remain in public life in Canada because we need his talents and statesmanship here and I say that very sincerely indeed.
I should like to say a few words abou the United Nations. Since the inception o: the organization the glaring lights of publl city have always been focused on that grea international body, but more so than evei during the last four or five months because of a certain situation that has existed amonj the personnel of the United Nations, and the praise and criticism that are heard fron many parts of the world.
It is hard to tell whether there is more argument at the United Nations or aboui the United Nations. Whichever it may be

External Affairs
ihat to a great extent we live in a harmonious and friendly spirit with our neighbours to the south, and that real amity and understanding always predominate in all our lealings with her.
There is one other matter that I wish to mention briefly, a matter which sometimes puzzles me. It is apparent that there is an bversensitiveness between friendly nations. :f there is some little thing on which we do rot entirely agree-within our own ranks- t is greatly publicized and bitterly criticized. That sort of thing I believe plays into the lands of Joe Stalin; because he hopes deeply hat the allies, the members of the democratic world, will fight one another before long. That idea results from the verbal fighting hat sometimes goes on between our friends when they do not entirely agree with one mother. It is possible within nations to have liversity of opinions.
We see in the press in this country now ome of the ideas that were expressed 60 'ears ago, and which should be conducive to lur good relations. Surely charity and com-irehension should be displayed in interna-ional dealings. We should realize and ippreciate what the United States has done. Ve should be aware that up to the present he has had a casualty list of nearly 150,000 nen in Korea, and she has given nearly $35 ifilion to Europe and various democracies in irder to assist in their defence and rehabili-ation after the last war.
As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Terming) so very well said a few moments go, there are the sacrifices which have been nade by my old motherland France, in Indo-Ihina, the sacrifices made by Britain in the ast war when she was for nearly a year the nly rampart against the barbarism which vould have flooded the world if England had ;one down. All these things we must remem-er in our contacts with one another, and :eep as the greatest incentives to be strongly rnited, even if we have some differences. I .o not mean to say that we should not express ur sentiments clearly and strongly, but at he same time we should always keep in our rinds that such expressions should be so ramed as to not offend our friends. It might e possible to offend our enemies, but never ;t us go so far as to offend our friends, 'hey are too much of a treasure, of a neces-Lty, to lose.
I listened with a great deal of interest to he travelogue delivered by the hon. member ar Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). It would not urprise you to know that when you mention ou are a Canadian, everything is wide open ar you; you immediately become persona rata. Why is that so? It is because the
[Mr. Bradette.l
people know that during world war I and world war II and following those wars, Canada was not at the peace table to obtain her pound of flesh, or for glory or terrestrial or maritime aggrandizement. They knew that Canada, in those two great wars, had helped to maintain the principles of Christianity, freedom and democracy. That is the kind of spirit that must prevail amongst us under all conditions. Otherwise, I repeat, there may be some cause of deep friction which may hurt us badly indeed, and stultify our efforts for peace.
I might repeat something that I have mentioned for the last three years. Only 25 years ago in this parliament we used to say that the surest way to bring about an international war would be through the erection of tariff walls between nations. We do not seem to have learned very much from those bitter lessons of the past, because even today we are erecting tariff walls that are hurting not only other nations in the world but also ourselves. In this connection I want to say that I sincerely hope the day may come when we will see a united nations of Europe, and of the world as far as tariffs are concerned. We must be realists on this score. I believe that the treaty of peace between Japan and the allies, for which Mr. Dulles was mostly responsible, is a masterpiece. It is a Christian treaty of peace; but what are we going to do with Japan? Are we going to allow her the means of survival? Are we going to raise a holler if a few little dolls or small toys come from Japan, or a few little artificial flowers? Are we going to ask for high tariffs against that production? If we do that against Japan, if we do that against India, Pakistan and against the Middle East, or any other country, then it is real war. Those people will resent it the same way the European nations and our country have resented the action taken by the United States against some of their production. Surely we know the bitterness of war and have learned that we should do everything in our power to avoid it. There should be enough statesmanship within the democratic nations to find a way to end dumping and prevent the destruction of our own economy. We should find a way of having freer trade than we have at the present time and more comprehension in economic matters.
I should like to say a few words about a Pacific pact. In my section of the country we have always been in favour of the Atlantic pact. As you know, we who live in northern Ontario are in the geographical centre of Canada. Our viewpoint is national in scope. I believe we are the only section of Canada having knowledge of municipal administration in the east and municipal

administration in the west. We generally take a broad point of view on all matters coming before the House of Commons. We have no quarrel with the wheat producers in the west; we have no quarrel with the fishermen in the east or west; in a word, we have no quarrel with anyone. We always try to find the national viewpoint on all problems that come before us.
To be sure of the sentiments of my own people on the Pacific pact, I attended a number of study groups in my constituency during the last few months. They were strongly against it. The primary reason was that, as Canadians, in the past we have shown that we do not need to mention our idealism or our generosity. Our young people shed their blood for some principle we thought worthy of defending, and we will do it again if needed. Today we are only a nation of 14 million people, large in area, under a healthy but harsh climate, and sparsely populated.
I do not mean to say that we should keep away from anything pertaining to the Pacific. We must help, but not through a pact. If we have a Pacific pact in the same sense that we have an Atlantic pact-and it should be in that sense-the expenditure that will be necessary will be very great. Let us remember this. Marx said in his writings that one of the best ways of destroying democracy would be by high taxation. No doubt Stalin knows what an influence that will have on a democracy, and the effect and costs of the cold war. Taxation in Canada, although it is lower than in some countries, is still high. We have, therefore, to be realists.
During the last war, Mr. Speaker, I was deputy speaker in this house. We sat for many months every session considering the war appropriations bills. I remember many, many occasions upon which crises arose because of the shortage of manpower in Europe. At that time we had about 12-5 million people. We must think in terms of our own population in connection with the effort we are able to make. If we had 50 million or 75 million people, then it would be a different thing; but we must be realists on this matter of military pacts. Supposing we had a Pacific pact as well as an Atlantic pact. It would cost us a total of from $4 billion to $5 billion, and would mean that we would not be able to properly support both of them. That is the reaction I received from my people. We belong to the whole world, and we must be realists. I believe the minister expressed the sentiments of the people of Canada generally in connection with a Pacific pact. We are interested in the east and we are interested in the Pacific.
External Affairs
The Colombo plan has shown that, as wel as the help we have given and will continui to give to the people of Asia and the Middli East.
I repeat that I believe I am voicing thi sentiments of a great majority of my owl people. I believe it will be impossible fo: us to be part and parcel of a Pacific pact oi a large scale, and at the same time give tb necessary assistance to the Atlantic pact.
I wanted to say a few words about ; trip I made last summer to the mid-Orient am Europe, but I will have other opportunities t speak about it this session. I want to mak my situation very clear. I was honoured b; the Canadian Katznelson Institute of Montrea by being included in a group that spent si: weeks in the new nation of Israel. This grou; was composed of 36 people from New Yor] university in the United States, includin students, professors and professional men o the Jewish nationality. I was invited, with out knowing about it in advance, no dout due to the good offices of my friend the hor member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) in connectio: with some work I had done for the zioni: movement in Canada. I was not representin Canada in any official capacity. I was nc going as chairman of the external affair committee. I was not going as a politicia but as a citizen of Canada. I preface m remarks with that statement in order to mak my position clear.
Since my return at the end of last Septem ber I have given a series of lectures in differ ent parts of Ontario and Quebec. I will likel go west later in the spring. In this connec tion I have received some very biased letter: what we call anti-semitic letters. It is nc worthy of a Christian to be anti-semitic. ] is not charitable because the divine victim o the cross, just before He drew His last breatl asked His Father to forget what had happene on Calvary. Surely that should be sufficier for any Christian, for any civilized people, t keep them from practising anti-semitism. also received quite a number of very critic: letters from Arab citizens.
Now, these letters hurt me quite a b because I went to Israel with an open mine I wanted to be objective in my thinkin towards Israel as well as towards the othc countries that I visited. I asked for an obtained a visa to go to Trans-Jordan, to go 1 Lebanon and to Egypt. I could not go to Syri because I could not obtain a visa from Ottaw; Washington or even when I was in the east i go to that country. Again, in every sectio of the Arab world into which I went I ha an open mind. I was well received indee because they knew that the Canadian peop! want peace in the Middle East. We want tt


Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: Mr. Speaker, several sessions ago we had a long and somewhat fruitless debate on the subject of a national flag for Canada. Despite the monumental number of designs put before the committee, no decision was made and we are still flying the old flag, for which I have some considerable affection, even though it is criticized because of its alleged lack of a distinctive Canadian emblem.
In the matter of international dress, however, we have had little difficulty in choosing a distinctive national garment. We have almost unanimously adopted the hair shirt. The pained bleats of the socialist party and of the press, particularly that part of it which is supporting the government, as well as the

External Affairs
lot made at Saigon. There is only one way n which these machine tools got there. They jvere shipped in. Is it so unrealistic, when hey and we are fighting a war, to do some-hung about stopping the enemy's potential supply of arms? It seems to me that it is comparatively elemental; yet when the suggestion of blockading the China coast is made fou would think the end of the world had :ome.
I want to mention briefly the situation in [ndo-China. We have discussed the Korean situation at some length. Let me say that there is a very real and very large war going an in Indo-China, and I think some slight recapitulation of the casualties of the French union forces would be of interest. Since 1945 there have been 90,000 men killed, missing or wounded. Of this number 1,452 were officers, and the number actually dead is extremely high, being close to 40,000. Compare that with the losses of the United Nations forces in Korea as of October, 1952. Since the beginning of the war there have been 21,471 killed, 9,403 missing and 89,000 wounded. Here you have a major war going on in Indo-China. Naturally, as has been said in the house, one cannot expect that France, being occupied in such a major war, can also put forward an all-out effort in the European theatre. I think it is unwise for people to be critical of the failure of France to fulfil her NATO commitments. Practically no other country has been able to do it, and France has been fighting an all-out war with casualties in the numbers I have mentioned.
I come now to Malaya and Hong Kong. In Malaya the United Kingdom has no less than 40,000 troops. I should not say the United Kingdom, because many of them are Malayans, there are some Africans, and a Fiji battalion; but they are British troops. There are 20,000 in Hong Kong and a further 20,000 in Korea. That means that the economy of the United Kingdom is supporting 80,000 troops in that part of Asia. Surely this all adds up to the fact that a major war is going on at the present time.
The policy of containment, the policy of neutralizing the war or attempting to isolate the war, has certainly failed. We are now adopting, or the United States is adopting, a more realistic attitude toward the situation.
I want to mention briefly the situation in Europe. I was privileged to spend about a month behind the iron curtain, not only in East Germany and in Austria, but in two of the satellite countries. The feeling in the satellite countries is such that there are literally millions of people in Europe hoping for war because by war they stand their only chance of liberation from their Russian masters.

There is no question about it; when the German troops went into the Ukraine they were met with garlands as deliverers. That feeling still exists. When we say that we are fighting a purely limited war, what encouragement does that give to these people behind the iron curtain? What encouragement does it give to the people of the Ukraine, who have the dream that some day there will be a free Ukrainian state? What encouragement does it give to the people of Poland, of Czechoslovakia or of Hungary, who have the dream that again they will be free? It gives them no encouragement.
I saw enough to know that one of the reasons Russia did not attack when she was prepared in 1947 was that she was not sure of her people. Well, Mr. Speaker, she was not sure then and she is very much less sure of them now. We have to encourage those people, and we have to encourage them by our policy. A policy of restricted action, of containment, of an isolated war is something that does not bring them encouragement. They want to be free; they want to get out from under the yoke of communism. Just as we are fighting communism, so they want to fight communism.
If there is proof needed of that, look at the purges that are now going on. There is not any satellite country today that has had a continuing communist hierarchy which has lasted for over a year. Surely that shows the conditions of unrest which exist. I think there is a very direct connection between the alliance or the joint action taken by Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia in the Balkans. I am sure that the impact of this anti-cominform pact on countries like Bulgaria, Albania and even Roumania is certainly very considerable. Now, are we going to encourage that? Are we going to encourage an attack there on the flank? Of course we are. Why, then, should we not encourage an attack on the other flank in China? There are many ways of beating the communists, and we have to use all of them.
Let us not try to play a safe war. There is no such thing as a safe war, and to attempt to play it that way is the surest way to national suicide. We have to be prepared in our minds to realize that there is no such thing as a safe war.
One last problem we have to meet is the problem of German refugees. Today there are about 1,000 refugees fleeing East Germany every day. They get over the frontier and come into Berlin in different ways, and they impose a tremendous problem of housing and overcrowding, not only in Berlin but in the whole West German state. This overcrowding and this apparent lack of interest

on our part in these refugees is in my opinion

and I spent some time in Germany- one of the contributing causes of the rise of neo-nazism. I heard it said over and over again: America and Canada are not interested in us because they won't do anything about this overcrowding.
I feel that one of the things that must be done if we are going to have stability in the West German government and if we are going to prevent the rise of neo-nazism is to see that something is done about the problem of the German refugee fleeing from the communists in East Germany.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson) terminated his speech?


Agar Rodney Adamson: No, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Adamson the debate was adjourned.
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Alphonse Fournier: Tomorrow we will continue with the resolution to refer the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the standing committee on external affairs. Then we will deal with Bill No. 46, to amend the Merchant Seamen Compensation Act; the two resolutions of the Minister of Resources and Development respecting the Yukon Act and the National Housing Act, 1944. Then we will take up Bill No. 110, to establish the historic sites and monuments board of Canada; and Bill No. 109, to authorize the grant of assistance to a province for the conservation of water resources. If we have time left, we will take up Bills Nos. 38 and 39.


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

Friday, February 13, 1953