1954-01-29

[Stage Direction]
Righl Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I understood yesterday that I might have today the unanimous consent of the house to make a short statement about the trip to Europe and Asia upon which I am about to set out and the reasons which induced me to undertake to make that trip. I propose to leave from Ottawa on Thursday afternoon, February 4, and to be back in Ottawa on March 17. During the several weeks that I shall be away my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) will be Acting Prime Minister.
I do not need to remind anyone that as Canada has developed in the past fifteen years, and as the nations of the world have become more and more dependent upon one another, the extent of the relations of this country, not only with our immediate neighbours and with other members of the commonwealth, but with all countries, has increased at an astonishing rate. You will recall that it was as recently as 1926 that Canada named her first diplomatic representative abroad. In the intervening twenty-seven years we have established diplomatic relations with over forty countries. In addition, through our contribution in two world wars, our membership in the League of Nations, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and our close association with the other members of the commonwealth, we have come to play an even larger role in the councils of the world. Our external policy has acquired a growing importance in the thinking of our people, and the importance of external relations has been reflected in the debates in the house and in practically all aspects of the activities of
those who are charged with the responsibilities of government. I think that fact is well illustrated by the fact that later today the unanimous consent of the house is expected to be given to a rather extraordinary debate upon external affairs.
An indication of Canada's increasing place in international affairs is to be seen also in the number of recent official visits paid to us here in Ottawa. Since the war, in addition to the royal visit of our gracious Sovereign and her consort, before her accession to the throne, we have been honoured by visits from such distinguished commonwealth leaders as Sir Winston Churchill, Mr. Nehru, the late Liaquat Ali Kahn, Mr. Attlee, Mr. Menzies and Mr. Holland. Prominent visitors from other lands have included the former president of France, Mr. Vincent Auriol; the chancellor of Germany, Mr. Konrad Adenauer; the former prime minister of Italy, Mr. de Gasperi; Crown Prince Akihito of Japan; the former president of the United States, Mr. Truman; and, at the beginning of this session of our new parliament, President Eisenhower. It is partly with a view to repaying some of these courtesies that I am making this tour.
Another purpose of my journey is to see for myself the conditions existing in other parts of the world and to assure the governments of those countries of the sincerity of our desire to co-operate with them in our own interests as well as in theirs. I am sure you will agree that it is important for us as Canadians to understand these conditions abroad and to have our own conditions understood abroad in order that we may all try to adopt the best course in our relations with each other.
Of course I do not feel that I should be absent from Canada for too long a period, especially while parliament is in session, and it will not be possible for me to make a long stay in any one country; but this is no doubt the most appropriate season to visit the East. By taking advantage of air travel I will try to make the best possible use of what time will be available. From the conversations I will have with the leaders of many countries I shall visit, I hope that I shall be able to bring back with me and also to leave behind not only useful information but perhaps a clearer picture of the problems which all of us have to face together.
1582	HOUSE OF
Prime Minister's World Tour
I have wanted for some time to visit Australia and New Zealand, both because I should like to see those sister countries of the commonwealth with which our relations have become so close, and also because we have recently been honoured by the visit of their prime ministers. The time available, however, would have been regrettably short and my visit to Australia would have taken place at a time when Her Majesty the Queen will still be in that country. I therefore proposed to the prime ministers of Australia and New Zealand, for that reason-and I can assure the house that it is for that reason alone-that my visit to their countries be postponed, and to this they kindly agreed. But I sincerely hope that such a visit may be arranged in the not too distant future. In fact, you know, it is not very much more difficult to go by air from this continent to Australia and New Zealand than it is to go there by air from Tokyo, from which point it had been originally planned that I would set off to visit Australia and New Zealand.
Europe, which I shall visit during the first part of my tour, is faced at present with a decision of great importance. Our own future may be quite largely influenced by its outcome. The presence of our soldiers and our airmen over there is an indication of our interest in the maintenance of some efficient method of collective protection against aggression, and I think all members will feel that this method is apt to be all the more efficient if we can all participate in it.
But the main purpose of my tour is a visit to Asia. That vast continent, which contains in fact well over half the world's population, was once a vague and rather romantic concept far over the horizon for most of us in this part of the world. Today we are vitally concerned with what happens in Asia. This concern arises both from our membership in the United Nations and from our membership in the commonwealth which now includes three important Asian countries, India, Pakistan and Ceylon.
We have joined with other members of the United Nations in helping to repel aggression in Korea. Only a few months ago our troops were engaged in actual and violent fighting, which I trust will not be renewed. I look forward to visiting these troops during my brief stay in Korea and to bringing them greetings from all Canadians.
Our interest in Asia has also been increased as a result of the desire of our people to assist our Asian friends to improve their social and economic conditions. For several years we have been contributing quite substantially to United Nations efforts in this field, and for the past three years we
[Stage Direction]

have also been spending more than $25 million a year for this purpose through the Colombo plan. These facts give some indication of how important Asia has become in our lives. Decisions taken there, and the welfare and happiness of these peoples, have become of real concern to us.
Canada, I think, has welcomed the opportunity to share in the encouragement of freedom and economic improvement in Asia because we realize the importance of maintaining good relations between the western world and the hundreds of millions of our fellow men in these ancient nations of Asia. I feel that we can maintain good relations with them only as long as we treat them on terms of complete equality, with respect for their older and perhaps somewhat less materialistic culture and achievements, and in a spirit of genuine understanding and cooperation. We must deal with them in the realization that while we may seem to have much to give they too have a very important contribution to make to the general welfare of the world.
Wherever my travels take me I know that my fellow Canadians will want me to bear their greetings and to assure our friends that we do want to play our part in the cause of peace, freedom and social justice, in our own interest as well as in theirs. I shall be travelling in an R.C.A.F. plane directed by Group Captain J. G. Stevenson and Wing Commander H. A. Morrison. In addition to the ordinary crew made up of personnel of the R.C.A.F., they will be accompanied by Sub-inspector P. J. Vaucher of the R.C.M.P. as security officer. My own party will be made up of Mr. W. Ross Martin of the privy council office and Mr. Charles A. Ritchie and Mr. D. M. Cornett of the Department of External Affairs.
It was decided just a day or two ago that Dr. Davey of the Department of National Health and Welfare would accompany us for a twofold purpose, any medical assistance that any of us might require and also to see for himself as the chief medical adviser of the department to Canadians travelling to the East just what the conditions about which he is advising really are. For our clerical work we will have Miss Perron of my office and Miss Monet of the Department of External Affairs. My confidential messenger, Alderic Groslouis, is also coming along to assist.
A seat on the plane is being made available to a representative of the Canadian Press, and Mr. William Stewart has been selected as that representative. A seat is also being made available to one of my sons and one of my daughters who want to make sure that I will take good care of myself

while I am away. Of course it goes without saying that the expenses occasioned by the presence with the party of the representative of the Canadian Press and my son and daughter will be taken care of by each of them for himself or herself.
To meet requests of the press, and there have been a lot of them, my office put out a pretty full and detailed statement, I thought, of all the stops and visits that I would be making from the time I left Ottawa until the time I returned. I do not think it would be fair to the house to impose on it the reading of that list. It has been pretty fully summarized in the press. I am sure most hon. members have seen it, and although they may not have thought that it was necessary for them to pay much attention to it they will have noticed that arrangements have been made for me to meet a great many interesting persons. I hope that when I return I can expect unanimous consent to make a report of my trip to the house.
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can be well assured that when he visits the many countries included in his itinerary he will be carrying greetings from all members of the house and from all the people of Canada to the lands which he visits. As he has said, understanding, a feeling of co-operation and a deep and close interest in the countries of Asia are today an essential part of the building of the kind of free world in which we all believe. Naturally the first concern of all of us will be the development of any closer and more effective association which may be established with the nations of the commonwealth that are found in Asia at this time. It seems to me that this has a significance far beyond the deep and important association that exists generally throughout the commonwealth.
This is the first time in all history that nations free to make their own choice have joined in a world-wide fellowship such as the commonwealth of nations is today. Anything that the Prime Minister of Canada or any Canadian can do to encourage, strengthen and foster the unity of purpose of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and the other nations and areas throughout the commonwealth will in itself be contributing to the advancement of the greatest international experiment that has ever been carried out successfully in the history of the world. Therefore, carrying a message of greeting and good will from this parliament and from Canada to all the
Prime Minister's World Tour nations he visits, undoubtedly this will have a special significance to those countries with a common concept of justice and with a similar parliamentary system. With what the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has said about the importance of Canada in world affairs today, I am sure there will be general agreement. There will be complete agreement also with the desirability of extending our contacts.
I would have hoped, and may I even still express the hope, that in addition to a representative of the Department of National Health and Welfare there would be a representative of the Department of Trade and Commerce, at a time when trade is so vital to the prosperity and security of this country. I do not know what the actual details are, but I should think at this time nothing could be more important than to carry, hand in hand with the message of good will, and the greetings that are extended, a clear indication, which could be expressed by a skilled representative of that department, of the importance of trade. Such a representative, through the many contacts, could also have sought those wider associations which mean so much in the sterling area and the countries associated with it. But that is something that must essentially be decided by the arrangements that can be made.
I would be less than frank if I did not express my regret that the press is not going to be more widely represented. I recognize that the whole press gallery cannot travel on this trip, but I would have hoped that through some system of choice, by lot or some other system perhaps best known to the press gallery, the decision might be made to choose those who could have given a wider representation. I say this because it does seem to me that one of the very important aspects of this trip is not only the message we convey to other countries through the visit of the Prime Minister and those associated with him, but also the information we receive about the views expressed in those different countries and the impressions that would help us in our own deliberations. The feeling of intimacy is made more real than when impressions are conveyed by more than one mind and one typewriter, no matter how highly qualified or highly regarded the individual may be.
These are thoughts that I place before the Prime Minister in the event that there may be a reconsideration of that decision. I feel that the wider the interpretation which can be placed before the people of Canada of the impressions that are gained, and the nature of the fellowship which is found to

Prime Minister's World Tour exist, the greater will be the contribution to the wider understanding we are all seeking to establish. I leave these thoughts with the Prime Minister. I feel sure that I am expressing not only my own sentiments but those of all members when I wish him success in the undertaking, Godspeed, happy landings and safe return.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: With the last words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will concur. I like to think of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) going on this tour, not as a salesman for Canada's produce but rather as an ambassador of good will. I think that if trade were the aim of the tour, then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) would be the person to make the trip. We all join in expressing to the Prime Minister our best wishes for a safe journey, for the establishment of more intimate and friendly relations with the other members of the commonwealth, and indeed with all the various countries he will visit.
I am sure when he returns he will be able to tell this house and the country that he has met with a cordial and friendly reception everywhere.
I believe the people of Canada will be well served by the Prime Minister as their ambassador, not representing any party and not even in the capacity, shall I say, of our Prime Minister, but rather in the capacity of a Canadian ambassador of good will making a tour of the world.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: I believe I should first express thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), Mr. Speaker, for taking the house so much into his confidence in letting us know as much about his prospective journey as he has. I think it is very important, and it is commendable of him to do so at this time.
May I say in the second place that he does indeed carry with him the good will of the whole house; I am satisfied of that. I am speaking more particularly for my own group, as others have spoken for theirs. I assure him he does carry with him our good will, and we want him to convey that for us to the countries he will visit. I want to assure . the Prime Minister also that our hopes for the complete success of his journey go with him, and for the fulfilment of the purpose for which this journey is being undertaken. Our prayers go with him for his safe passage there, and his return.
I want him to know that we will look forward with pleasure to his return when he again takes his seat in this house.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a question. After visiting these many countries and seeing their distress, and being somewhat weary coming home, would it not be a fine finish to this trip if he could have had the physical and mentally refreshing uplift of dropping down to visit that happy green island?



NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT


Mr. A. M. Campbell (The Baitlefords) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 175, to amend the Navigable Waters Protection Act (protection of rivers).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: The only change concerned is the insertion in section 18 of the words "or other industrial plant", as underlined on the opposite page of the bill. It merely enlarges the scope of the original act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: That this house do now adjourn.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is for the purpose of making it possible to have in the house a discussion on external affairs. This is the first opportunity the house has had for such a discussion at this session, and I am sure I will be expressing the views of hon. members if I begin by saying that on this occasion we will miss especially the presence of the late member for Peel (Mr. Graydon), whose constructive criticism and knowledge of international affairs has always added so much to our discussions of this subject in the past. We shall miss his contribution to the debate, as we still miss his friendly and happy personality in this house. Mr. Graydon had opponents in the house, but no enemies; and we shall long lament his loss.
Also I have a sad duty-and I hope it will not be inappropriate for me to refer to it at this time-to mention that our country has recently suffered another grievous loss, and I another close friend, in the passing of the undersecretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Hume Wrong. Of proud lineage and brilliant mind, with wise and honest judgment, Mr. Wrong had, beneath a shy, almost

austere exterior, a warm and generous spirit. I think I have been possibly in as good a position as anyone in the house to appreciate the quality and worth of his service to Canada over the years.
Then, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to mention with great regret that the foreign and indeed the public service of Canada suffered a third loss recently in the death of Mr. George Patterson, a member of our delegation to the recent United Nations assembly, and our consul general in Boston. Mr. Patterson was a quiet, sincere and dedicated man, whose whole life was devoted to the service of his fellow men, for many years in the Far East as an officer of the Y.M.C.A., and later in China as our representative there. Like that of Mr. Wrong and Mr. Graydon, Mr. Patterson's life was shortened by his refusal to recognize any limitations on the energy and hours he gave to his work.
We in Canada often, and quite rightly, refer with pride to the great natural resources of our country. But greater even is Canada in its human resources, when it has men like these three to serve it.
A pleasant task, Mr. Speaker, is now to extend, if I may, my good wishes to the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), as he takes over responsibility as critic for the official opposition in matters of external affairs. In a sense I suppose that makes him my opposite number. I know that he will not spare the government or me when he thinks we have done the wrong thing, or left undone the right thing. But I know also that he will find his work the more satisfying, as I do, because on the fundamental objectives of our foreign policy, as opposed to details and methods, there is a great and fortunate degree of unity on all sides of the house.
I propose today-and I am afraid even though I shall take probably longer than I should, I shall leave many subjects untouched-to make a general and, I fear, a somewhat discursive survey of international affairs. Some subjects I shall not attempt even to touch, because they will be dealt with, at least some of them, at a later time by my friend and colleague whom I am so happy to have as my parliamentary assistant, the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Pinard).
For instance, he will refer to the recent assembly of the United Nations at which, for most of the time, if I may say so, the Canadian delegation was led with such distinction and efficiency by the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote).
The reduction of tension in Europe-and I am going to talk about European affairs
External Affairs
first-which began a year ago, and which was mentioned in this house about that time, has been maintained. Nevertheless, the menace of Soviet imperialism remains and foreign and defence policies of our country and other countries of the free world must continue to be based on this fact. And I suppose we should also not forget that if there has been improvement-and I think there has been- it is largely due to the increased strength and unity of the free world, especially within the Atlantic alliance.
In Europe two developments have occurred since I spoke last in the house on international affairs, which I think deserve special attention. In the first place there has been a change, whatever it may portend, in the attitude and in the tactics, if not in the foreign policy, of the Soviet union since the death of Joseph Stalin. There has been some indication in the past year of a trend away from the sterile rigidity of Stalinist policies both in domestic and in foreign affairs.
Among the more interesting Soviet internal developments have been the new emphasis on collective leadership in Moscow as opposed to personal dictatorship, and the modification of Stalin's denationalizing policy as applied to the non-Kussian peoples of the Soviet union. And there has been a greater stressing, I think, in their governments of practical considerations, of technical efficiency, rather than of Marxist orthodoxy. However, the outstanding domestic development in the Soviet union during this period has been in economic policy, where a program of increased production of consumer goods has been given such wide publicity that the failure of the regime to carry out its promises in this respect would, I think, cause very great disappointment among the people, and possibly even some unrest.
Agriculture in Russia has received particular attention, with an apparent reliance on greater money rewards for the peasant as the best way now to get results. The communists have not of course retreated from the principle of collectivization, but the peasant's own plot now seems to have become again a respectable part of the system; whereas previously, in recent years, it was merely a reprehensible survival of capitalism.
As for Soviet external policy, it still presents a mixed pattern of some things that are hopeful and more that remain stubbornly discouraging. There have been some minor concessions and some reassuring words. However, I suggest that nothing in all this gives us cause to believe that basic Soviet objectives in foreign policy have changed, or that Soviet leaders are in fact ready to accept reasonable

External Affairs
solutions to major international problems. That is one reason why we are watching so closely the Berlin conference today.
The second European development which stands out in the last year is of course the remarkable, and to some people disturbing, recovery of West Germany. While this process has been under way for some time, both in the economic and the political field, the decisive electoral victory of Chancellor Adenauer last September drew special attention to the progress and the stability of the West German republic. The people of the Soviet zone of Germany, where an election such as that would never have been permitted by the occupation authorities, nevertheless managed to show their own will for freedom during June of 1953 in courageous demonstrations against the communist regime, and by so doing they exposed once and for all the hollowness of the claim that the Soviet puppet regime could speak for them at home or before the world. And that fact, Mr. Speaker, is worth keeping in mind, particularly at this moment. The Soviet delegation at the Berlin conference may once again pretend that Germany can be united in an all-German government, formed not by free elections but by merging the present east and west German governments. Well, we all know what happened to democracy in Poland and Czechoslovakia when Russian communist agents were allowed to share governmental responsibility with genuine democrats. It would be deplorable if that tragic error were repeated in Germany.
There is of course a reverse side to this medal. The very qualities of energy and discipline which have served the west Germans so well and resulted in their new strength are beginning to arouse concern among some old friends of ours who are also old neighbours of theirs, and it is easy for anyone whose knowledge of European history goes back beyond the last two or three years to understand this concern. Europe is no longer simply an east and a west, with a void left in the centre by the total collapse of Germany in 1945. Once again there is a centre. We have therefore not only the continuing danger of Soviet imperialism; there is also fear of what many Europeans and others who remember 1914 and 1939 regard as the reviving danger of German ambition and German armed strength. I think we can understand this fear without agreeing with the conclusions which are sometimes drawn from it. But let us assume that there is a basis for it, a reality to the fear. What then is the best method of removing it, to restrain a rearmed and perhaps a reunited Germany from aggression again?

Well, one method of controlling the menace of German aggressive expansion is the old unhappy one, by which the west joined with the east against an independent armed Germany in central Europe. Neither in 1914 nor in 1939 was such an alliance effective in preventing war, though that alliance later contributed enormously to Germany's defeat and punishment. The second method, which is new, and not yet tried, is to bring Germany into an alliance of west and central Europe against aggression, an alliance in which European unity can develop for other than defence purposes. And we have that, Mr. Speaker, in the European defence community.
The Canadian government has already expressed its support for EDC as a method for associating Germany with the European system and with the Atlantic community. Surely the harnessing of German rearmament to a defensive collective purpose would provide the best security for all, east as well as west, from the possible danger that Germany, isolated and with renewed strength in central Europe, might once again play off east against west and eventually be tempted once more to follow the old policy of defeat and attack, subdue and occupy.
I do not think myself that a solution of this European problem, which is also an Atlantic problem and therefore a Canadian problem, can be found in Germany's disarmament and neutralization, or indeed in Germany's rearmament and neutralization. That solution might of course and indeed does appeal to the communists for obvious reasons. It would mean the exclusion of Germany from the developing European system, and it would release her from any responsibility for sharing in collective defence against aggression. In any event, as I see it, such a solution, even if it were desirable-and it certainly has its appeal-is simply not practicable. Surely it is unrealistic to base any permanent policy on the disarmament, the control and the neutralization of 65 million Germans inside their present boundaries. Surely it is better to bind Germany, not only to the rest of Europe, but to the Atlantic community. I know it will be argued that the Russians and their satellites will simply never agree to this, and therefore will never agree to any unification of Germany on these terms. Nevertheless, this is the policy that has been accepted as best and wisest in the present circumstances by the German republic, the United States, the United Kingdom and France, by ourselves and by many other countries. It would, I think, be a great misfortune if it were abandoned now.
The establishment of the European defence community is the best and quickest way of

implementing this policy. It is the only proposal now under consideration, and it came originally, we should not forget, from France itself.
But it is not, of course, the only way it could be done. West Germany could, for instance, be permitted to rearm as a member of NATO. She could also rearm outside NATO but in treaty relationship with NATO countries. But not many of those who oppose EDO would support either of these courses as a preferable solution to the problem. The EDO could be altered into an arrangement of co-operating national armies instead of a consolidated supranational European army. This weaker form of EDC could then be brought into association with a stronger, and more unified, NATO, which would have greater collective control over the national defence budgets and policies of its members. But there are also objections to this idea and it is unlikely that it would secure greater support than the present EDC proposal. However it is to be done, close and organic association with a free, strong and cohesive international community, European and Atlantic in character, with membership in the United Nations, provides I think the best guarantee that the military strength of a revived Germany will be used only for defensive purposes.
There is one thing we can be sure of. The communists will use these German and European questions as they use every other opportunity to divide and weaken the free world coalition. If the situation seems to be a little less critical now the temptation is therefore the greater to relax and indulge in the costly luxury of quarrelling among ourselves. If we yield to that temptation too often we will soon dissipate the unity and strength that have been so patiently and effectively built up, especially since the establishment of NATO.
Personally I am more than ever convinced that the continuing cohesion of all the Atlantic powers, not merely the European powers, is vitally important to the preserving and reinforcing of the peace of the world and that no security and no stability can be achieved through isolated arrangements, either in North America or in Europe. Continentalism, whether of the European or American variety, is not enough for safety.
Because of this I feel that the essential steps which are required to bring about European unity can be taken only when there are also close and continuous lifelines across the channel and indeed across the Atlantic. One of the most heartening developments of the post-war period has been the building-up
External Affairs
of those lines which are now I think, or at least I hope, strong enough to stand the strain, psychological and otherwise, on certain European countries of including Germany in our arrangements.
Obviously that inclusion must be brought about in such a way that the fears that come from the past will be replaced by new hope for a future where Germany will be only one country in a group that will embrace more than Germany and even more than Europe.
This question naturally leads to the consideration of the meeting between the foreign ministers of the four great powers going on at Berlin at the present time, a meeting which seems to have got down to business with a minimum of argument over the agenda. We can at least take some encouragement from that. It is to be hoped that this meeting will concentrate on the Austrian and German problems and that something constructive will come from it. It seems hard to understand that in 1954 Austria, one of Hitler's first victims, should still be occupied while other countries which were his accomplices have long since had their pre-war status restored by treaties.
As for Germany, we shall soon see whether or not the Soviet union is really prepared to allow its unification on acceptable terms, namely, under a government freely elected by the whole of the German people and with freedom to make its own political arrangements, within of course the framework of the United Nations charter. I think we can express a hope for some good results from this meeting, but we should not expect too much from it.
From even this cursory survey of European affairs it is clear that there are still numerous obstacles to be overcome before the security and prosperity of the free nations of the Atlantic community can be ensured. However, I think there has been a significant advance from the fear and instability of the immediate post-war period, and for that I suggest we ought to be grateful to NATO.
NATO's work, which I think has been pretty effective in this regard, is far from finished. Indeed it is just getting under way. It has taken time for the decisions taken and the plans approved to bear fruit, and their full impact has only recently begun to be felt. For the majority of NATO countries the proportion of the total output of their economy devoted to defence is only now reaching its peak. According to General Gruenther, the present supreme commander in Europe of NATO forces, the forces under his command have approximately doubled since 1951, and the gain in their effectiveness, in their

External Affairs
modernization and in their fighting efficiency is greater still. These NATO forces are now strong enough to make an aggressor think twice before taking them on.
But the Soviet and satellite forces are also being steadily increased in numbers and in effectiveness. That is why it is still important for the west not only to add a German contribution to the existing NATO strength but also to improve further NATO forces in equipment and in quality so that if the worst emergency should happen, these forces could act as a shield behind which the full strength of the member countries could rapidly be mobilized.
To complete this very short review of the work of NATO I should refer, if only for a moment, to the ministerial meeting of the council which was held in Paris in December last. I attended that meeting with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), and with our permanent representative to the council, Mr. Wilgress. I think the most significant discussions which took place in Paris at that time were those relating to the international situation as it affected the various NATO countries and with the question of future NATO defence planning.
At these discussions the members of the council spoke their minds very frankly and freely. I think by doing so we brought about a better understanding between the various countries, even though, at times, there was a difference between us on some things.
It was agreed at this council meeting that the NATO countries would continue to seek three basic objectives. First, not to let down our guard. Second, to promote at the same time our economic and social development and to strengthen our political unity. Third, to seek to negotiate with the Soviet union on outstanding differences whenever and wherever possible.
The broad lines of future NATO defence planning to meet the threat of aggression over an extended period were agreed to in Paris in December. Member countries should be prepared to maintain a high level of military preparedness. We felt, however, that it would be unrealistic to expect to build up and maintain further substantial increases in our collective forces for the long haul. Therefore, the plan is to see that the NATO forces which now exist and which will be strengthened are furnished with the most modern equipment possible, including new types of weapons; that they are given adequate support and are ready to go into action rapidly. Effective local defence of this kind, plus the certainty of swift and crushing
(Mr. Pearson.]
retaliation, including atomic retaliation from the air, is the defence combination upon which we now rely to deter the aggressor.
The council had before it at this meeting a report of the annual review committee for 1953. On the basis of the recommendations of this report we agreed in Paris on our NATO force goals for the next three years. The figures for 1954 were firm commitments while those of 1955 and 1956 are provisional and for planning purposes only. Following the practice established at previous ministerial meetings, the council has released no precise figures, but I can say that the aggregate forces planned for the end of this year are to be a little larger in numbers-that is, collectively-and substantially better in quality than those now in existence.
There were other activities of the ministerial council and the permanent council in Paris, apart from those concerning defence, which I will not be able to go into at this time. They included how to bring about closer parliamentary association with NATO's work; how to correlate production programs in Europe; co-ordination of civil defence plans; the preparation of emergency plans; the study of information and cultural relations questions. These matters received little or no publicity but they are an increasingly important part of the process of keeping the North Atlantic alliance together, and they are in tune with the needs of our time.
I should now like to move across the world to the Far East and to say a few words about developments in Korea. Since I last spoke in the house on this subject an armistice agreement has been signed there which ended on acceptable terms more than three years of fighting by the United Nations in resisting the unprovoked aggression launched against the republic of Korea. With that aggression repelled, the military purpose of this great collective resort to armed force has been accomplished but, of course, only at a cost to our own forces, and great cost to those of the United States and those of Korea which bore the brunt of the struggle. We remember that cost as we talk about Korea today.
This armistice marked the end of the first step toward a peaceful settlement in Korea. The next step has been to try to convert that armistice into a peace settlement through the convening of a conference. The United Nations assembly, last summer and last autumn, long and carefully considered how that conference could be brought about. As a result, as most hon. members know, when the general assembly last summer closed at the end of August it had, by formal resolution, made provision for the United Nations side of the Korean political conference. These

decisions did not meet in full our own wishes but they were those of the United Nations and we accepted them and respected them as such. Moreover, we thought that those decisions, even though they were not perfect from our point of view, were good enough to provide a basis for a Korean political conference if the other side wanted such a conference.
Then, as hon. members will recall, last autumn discussions began at Panmunjom with the communist side in an effort to work out the details for this conference. Those discussions are theoretically still going on, although they have been suspended for the time being. As these discussions were taking place in December last they removed some of the pressure at the assembly, which was meeting then, from continuing its deliberations into January. As hon. members will recall, at that time a resolution was passed making provision for recall of the assembly if a majority of the members so desired if the president of the assembly, Madame Pandit,- who has been acting in that position with such skill and distinction-should decide that the time had come or should be asked by any member to recall the assembly. Such a request has now been made by the government of India. Our reply to that request has just been sent today to the Secretary General of the United Nations for transmission to the president. This reply was made after a great deal of consideration and exchange of views between ourselves and the Indian government, the British government, the United States government and other governments. Possibly I might put this reply on the record, Mr. Speaker. It is as follows:
Please inform the secretary general as soon as possible that the Canadian government has given very sympathetic consideration to the request of the president of the general assembly that the present session be reconvened on February 9. The Canadian government appreciates the desire of the government of India to report to the United Nations general assembly on the discharge of its responsibilities as chairman and executive agent of the neutral nations repatriation commission in respect of the prisoners of war placed in its custody under the provisions of subparagraph 51	(b) of the
Korean armistice agreement, but considers that in present circumstances it would be inadvisable to reconvene the general assembly for discussion of the general Korean question of which the assembly is seized. In the view of the Canadian government a session on this subject-
That is on the general Korea question.
-might more usefully be reconvened at a later date in March or April.
We took that position, Mr. Speaker, because of developments in Panmunjom where steps are now being taken to bring about a resumption of the talks, and we hope that these steps will be successful within the next few
External Affairs
days; because of developments in Berlin where Far Eastern questions have been put on the agenda; and because we came to the conclusion, after the inquiries we made, that it would not be possible, if the session opened on February 9, to restrict its deliberations merely to the action of India and the neutral nations repatriation commission.
It should have been possible before now at Panmunjom to work out a satisfactory plan for the Korean political conference. Differences of viewpoint occurred at once, of course, as one would expect, between the negotiators from the two sides on this question. But on their face, none of those differences were impossible or even difficult of reconciliation. Indeed I think a solution might have been found if the communist representatives had not turned from negotiation to abuse, thus indicating that if their principals wanted a conference at all, they did not want one at that time. Hence the negotiations were suspended. As I have said, steps are being taken-which we hope will be successful-to bring about their resumption. The present situation in Korea is simply that there is no fighting, but there is no peace. Our servicemen in that area, while they remain at the alert, have for more than five months, however, been spared the tragic consequences of actual conflict. That is a blessing which we would all do well to remember.
One other issue out there has now been disposed of in the prisoners-of-war question. I do not need to go into details of that matter inasmuch as they will be familiar to most hon. members. We have taken the position as a government that the action of the United States commander in releasing and returning to civilian status the prisoners of war under his jurisdiction when they were returned to him by the neutral nations repatriation commission was not only legally correct but morally sound and quite consistent with the terms of the armistice agreement itself. It seems to us that no other course was open to the United Nations commander at that time. Our own position in regard to this matter has been, I think, quite clear and consistent from the beginning. We have not believed nor do we now believe that any prisoner should be compelled by force to return to what was once his homeland. The provisions of the commission's terms of reference were drafted to prohibit enforced repatriation, and those of us who took part in the long, complicated and difficult negotiations to that end will recall this very clearly. But that prohibition would have little meaning if the only alternative facing a prisoner was indefinite captivity. Therefore the terms of reference in the armistice agreement made

External Affairs
clear provision for the final release of prisoners to civilian status 120 days after their being placed in the custody of the commission. In the words of General Hull-
The plain intent of paragraph 11 of the terms of reference is to prevent either party to the agreement from frustrating the basic purpose of avoiding indefinite captivity for the prisoners.
We subscribe to that position.
Of course if there had been a different attitude taken by the communist representatives on the neutral nations repatriation commission and by the communist side in Korea it would have been, I think, quite possible, almost easy, to have arranged for the examination of these prisoners in the time allotted for it, ninety days. It was understood by those who took part in these negotiations that the ninety days meant ninety consecutive days. However, after the first examinations took place, and when it was clear to the world that the great majority of the prisoners would rather go back to captivity than to go home under communist rule, this was such a terrific blow to the prestige of communism in the Far East that the communists themselves from that time forward did everything they could to prevent further examinations. That seems to me to be a simple and pretty obvious explanation of why the examination of prisoners broke down before the end of the ninety-day period.
But even if we solve these Korean questions they are only one aspect of the more fundamental question of relations with the Far East and with Asia generally. We should ask ourselves, as I am sure we do, and it is very much in our minds now with the forthcoming visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to that part of the world, what should be the basis of our policy as a government, as a country, towards what I think we can call now the new Asia. I suggest we would be wise to observe the following principles in our relations with these Asian states. We must not compromise with communist military aggression in Asia or in any other place. But while, I think, it is easy to be clear on that point, that does not mean that we should assume that every anti-colonial, nationalist or revolutionary movement in Asia is Russian communist in origin or direction any more than we should assume that, with patience and sympathy, every Asian communist leader can be turned into a Tito.
Secondly, I suggest that we must convince or try to convince the Asian peoples that democracy, our kind of democracy, free democracy, can do more for the individual than communist tyranny can ever hope to

do. We can do this in many ways, by constructive policies in our own countries, by plans for mutual aid, and also by avoiding giving the impression that the western allies are, in the east, associated only with regimes and societies that do not meet the desire for change of the awakening masses of that part of the world. Our policy in Asia then, if this principle is correct, must be more than a policy merely of opposition to communism. It must be constructive, and anti-communism should not be the only claim to our assistance.
We should recognize, and I think we do recognize in this country, that social, national and economic forces are at work in Asia that would have erupted in disturbing ways if there had never been a communist revolution in Moscow. We cannot reverse these forces and we ignore them at our peril. Where communism has been able to take over these new forces, as in China, we should neither, I think, blind ourselves to the dangers of the situation by wishful thinking that this is merely an agrarian revolution, nor increase these dangers by rash and provocative policies. Furthermore, as I see it, by associating counter-revolution, which can develop indigenously as the whole history of China shows, with foreign intervention and foreign assistance we may strengthen rather than weaken communist regimes.
The fate of our world, Mr. Speaker, may be decided quite as much by the direction taken by the march of Asian millions as by the failure or success of the Kremlin's plans for communist imperial domination. Canada has a special obligation and a special opportunity in these matters as a member of the commonwealth of nations, for the commonwealth is now of Asia and Africa as well as of the western world. We can, I think, be happy that our relations with the other members of the commonwealth remain close and friendly though problems, especially economic and financial problems, exist to test our co-operation. I think these relations will be even closer and even more friendly as the result of the voyage of friendship, good will and exploration which our Prime Minister is beginning at the end of next week.
We can be happy, then, that our relations with the commonwealth members remain so close and so friendly. But there is another country with which our relations must also remain close and friendly, and that is our neighbour, the United States. We have a special responsibility here too, not only because these relations are so fundamental to our joint security and prosperity but also because the United States is the leader of

our free world coalition and is bearing the greatest share of the burden to maintain peace. These relations with the United States are becoming more and more important to both countries, and more varied and more complicated. That was inevitable, as the state of the world has changed, as our own progress towards economic and political strength has accelerated, and as we become more important in the scheme of things. Naturally, therefore these relations with the United States have become more important and more complicated for us. We should not be surprised or discouraged by that. We will work out these problems, these increasing problems -these problems of security against attack, security against subversion, of trade and communications, of border crossings-we will work them out with less difficulty if we keep constantly in mind how great our dependence is on each other for safety and prosperity, if we in Canada do not forget on our side the heavy burden of leadership and responsibility which the United States is carrying, and if our neighbours remember that partnership and co-operation are a two-way process and, above all-and this is a simple rule-if neither partner asks the other to do what it would not like to be asked to do itself.
One important specific problem at the moment in our relations with the United States which has been causing us a good deal of concern is that of the St. Lawrence seaway. As hon. members know, we have now reached a point where the only thing that stands in the way of the beginning of Canadian construction of that seaway is an appeal before the courts of the United States. We have just learned today that the court of appeals of the District of Columbia circuit court has delivered judgment on the appeal brought against the order of the federal power commission granting a licence to the power authority of the state of New York. The court has denied the appeal, and confirmed the order of the federal power commission. This removes the second last legal obstacle to the development of power in the international section which is an essential preliminary to the development of the seaway itself. That is the way in which we have, over the years, been able to settle our difficulties with our neighbour, and I am satisfied we will be able to settle them in the same friendly spirit in the days to come. We must certainly do our best to face and solve these complicated Canadian-United States questions, these neighbourly difficulties, with that minimum of bickering and maximum of good will which has been characteristic in this century of relations between the two countries.
External Affairs
If Canada and the United States cannot grow closer together in friendship, in mutual respect and in the understanding on which friendship must rest, there is not much chance for peace and stability in the rest of the world. But, Mr. Speaker, we can solve our problems with our neighbour in a reasonable manner, and there is somewhat more hope for peace and stability in the world than existed a year ago. We can take some comfort from this, as we face the numerous problems before us, and so long as we do not forget that the world still remains an unsafe place for the weak, the weary and the unwary.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first to thank my hon. friend for the very kind personal reference made to me. I assure him that, at all times, I shall endeavour to follow out his admonition based on experience, that in matters of external affairs members of all parties are in agreement on the fundamentals. I want to say to the hon. member that is in keeping with the friendly attitude that was shown to me when I was one of the parliamentary observers at the United Nations conference in 1952, by him and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin).
With him I am in full agreement that in the discussion of external affairs Mr. Graydon made a contribution that was effective, worthy and wise. He expressed himself in language that the average Canadian understood, and during his lifetime did his full part to bring about a better understanding among nations.
International affairs are in large measure the creation of events elsewhere in the world. When Mr. Graydon spoke for this party he never carried the hatchet of narrow partisanship but reserved to himself his constitutional right and duty of putting forward fair criticism. I intend to follow him in that course. A non-partisan policy on international affairs cannot be conducted on a one-way street. It demands the fullest information that the government has. available, within the limits of security. We, in the opposition, have the right to be heard. When any major decisions are to be made, unless of immediate moment, I believe it would be well at all times that we in the opposition have the opportunity of expressing our views before a final decision is made. Otherwise our opinions are mere afterthought.
As I listened to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) today referring to the trip he is about to embark upon, I could

External Affairs
not but think that knowledge of the problems everywhere in the world is valuable, if not a prerequisite to an informed discussion of world affairs. On his trip around the world, the Prime Minister will have the good wishes of the Canadian people as he speaks for Canada. While abroad representing this nation, he will indeed be Mr. Canada, and we ask him to convey to the peoples he will see in all parts of the world a parliamentary message of good will.
I believe travel would also be conducive to a better informed discussion in parliament of international affairs, if made available in larger measure to the members of this house. In Britain and in the United States, both parliament and congress recognize that. From time to time representatives of the United States foreign relations and foreign affairs committees have the opportunity of visiting various parts of the world where matters of importance are arising. Recently 25 representatives from the House of Lords and the House of Commons in Britain visited France and the other NATO countries. Before the Marshall plan was introduced in the United States, some 200 members of congress visited Europe.
I am not advocating joy junkets at the expense of the country. I am informed that most of these members pay their own expenses, in whole or in part, but they have available to them opportunities of travel through using air force facilities while aircraft are engaged on official or routine training trips. I would suggest that for the betterment of Canada, in order that our constituents may know more of the serious international problems with which we are faced, in the words of the minister, if the opportunity were given to the external affairs committee to visit various NATO countries each of these members would with full knowledge be able to impress their constituents with the sombre picture of world events as was placed before the house today by the minister. For after all, we must realize that if the most the minister can say is that tensions have lessened and that the fears and the possibility of immediate war have lifted, but that a sombre future remains, parliament and the Canadian people must realize that heavy expenditures for defence will continue for a long time ahead.
The minister has stressed the need of unity among the NATO nations. I think he conveyed the idea that unity even more than men was needed-unity in action and unity in objective. We need unity in objectives internationally among the Canadian people, for it is they who carry the load of taxation upon their shoulders which our defences demand.

I shall endeavour to discharge my responsibilities as an opposition member in the discussion of foreign affairs in the manner set forth in the addendum to a report made in the United States committee on foreign relations in 1949.
It is the more important that our country's policy be right rather than bipartisan.
I prefer the word "non-partisan" instead.
Unity solely for the sake of unity may be disastrous. History is strewn with the wreckage of countries that were united but on the wrong course. Whenever the loyal opposition is silenced either by force or by its own failure to speak up, freedom is in danger.
The minister mentioned Hume Wrong in a well-deserved eulogy. I regard Mr. Hume Wrong as one whose contribution has meant much in raising the standard of Canada among the councils of the world. He served his country in war as in peace. Many of those who serve us in the field of diplomacy do so in an atmosphere of obscurity, if not anonymity. That was not Mr. Wrong's position; nevertheless often our people as a whole do not realize the importance of their service.
I was in Mexico recently. While there I had the privilege of an interview with the Hon. Luis Padilla Nervo, foreign minister of Mexico, a country that is on most friendly terms with Canada in large measure because of contributions made by men like Hume Wrong in his sphere. I might add that the contribution being made today by Mr. Jules Leger, Canada's ambassador to Mexico, is in keeping with the highest traditions of public service in foreign affairs.
Having said that, I am going to deal with a few of the changes to which the hon. member has made reference, and which indicate a recession in the aggression hitherto exhibited by the Soviet republic. We must look at the U.S.S.R. objectively. We may see red, but we must see objectively, fairly and clearly. We must not cynically turn down the proffered hand of peace, if it be that, although the minister gave no indication that he felt any assurance, in the current problems facing nations of the world, of any changed attitude on the part of the U.S.S.R. Neither dare we put away our defences.
Soviet objectives have not changed, if the events since 1945 are any indication. Tensions have lessened. The minister has stated that NATO is now so powerful that no nation dare attack it with impunity. In other words there is peace through strength which ultimately we hope, in the words of Madame Pandit, will achieve strength through peace.
The U.S.S.R. have resumed diplomatic talks. A conference of foreign ministers is

taking place in Berlin, the first in five or six years; whereas there were some six conferences in a period of four years immediately after the war. The anti-communist prisoners in Korea have been released, and there is no probability of a resumption of war there. I have no hesitation in saying that I believe the attitude taken in connection with the release of the prisoners of war a few days ago was the proper one, for humanity dictated that they be given an opportunity to declare themselves for freedom. In Europe thousands of German prisoners of war have been released. Visits to Moscow by businessmen and others are no longer being discouraged. We might call it a peace offensive. The U.S.S.R. is talking about the desirability of extending and expanding trade channels. Russia has agreed to discuss the question of atomic energy and atomic control.
But certainly nothing the minister said has indicated an assured change of heart by the Kremlin or, to use the words of one columnist, that the Russian bear had indeed become a panda. The Kremlin pattern of 30 years remains. Is it the proffered hand of peace, or is it a design on the part of the U.S.S.R. to divide the United Nations within the North Atlantic community, to defeat EDC, to separate France and possibly Italy from EDC? For certainly, without France as a member of EDC, our present concept of European policy would require tremendous changes in viewpoint.
When some speak of a changed attitude by the Kremlin in the last six or seven months we think of Beria who, following the course of many others in the Kremlin after holding absolute power, met a firing squad. The press recently contained a reference that epitomized, more completely than words could, something of the tremendous challenge to constitutional government inherent in the practice of the principles of Leninism. Here is the record. Since 1917 3 out of every 5 marshals in the army of the U.S.S.R. have been shot; 9 of the 11 cabinet ministers in the 1936 cabinet have been shot; 5 of the 7 presidents of the central executive committee have met the same fate; 43 of the 53 secretaries of the communist party in the last 25 years have been shot; 15 of the 27 who wrote the constitution of freedom for the U.S.S.R. in 1936 have faced the firing squad.
That is a picture that does not indicate any vestige of freedom. Of the 80 members of the Soviet war council in the years since 1922, 70 have been shot. There was but one member of Lenin's first politburo-Stalin-who did not meet the same fate. That tremendously challenging array of statistics is most revealing.
External Affairs
The minister states that we must maintain our defences. That is true. He mentioned the situation in Berlin today where the foreign ministers are meeting. He spoke of it as a very hopeful sign that they had been able to agree so quickly on the agenda. The reason they agreed on the agenda with such alacrity, in the face of the truculence exhibited by Mr. Molotov, was that the agenda agreed upon was his; and that appears in large measure to be the basis of any agreement so far attained at the conference. But the world will continue to hope.
While the soviets talk of agreements for world peace they stir up trouble in China, in Morocco, in Iran and in other parts of the world. They endeavour to secure the desertion of nations from EDC. The minister was unable to tell us much of that conference, and I can understand something of the difficulty in that regard. But certainly the attitude displayed by Mr. Molotov in his opening address, in answer to the outstandingly favourable words of Mr. Eden, the brilliantly conciliatory spirit of Mr. Bidault and the searching analysis of Mr. Dulles, was simply a refusal to meet any of their arguments for peace. His only sentimental word was to compliment East Germany on the fact that it is to be the scene of some of the meetings that are to take place in the days ahead.
I am not going to trouble the house with reading excerpts from the speeches made by Mr. Eden, Mr. Bidault and Mr. Dulles at that conference, but every one of them breathes a spirit of peace, a desire to work together, a willingness to co-operate in the world of today. Molotov spurned their offers of peaceful co-operation. He did not face the situation in Europe as it is, realizing, as the minister said, that Germany, a nation of 65 million people, cannot be kept in subjugation or neutralized forever; nor that a peace treaty with Austria should be effectually brought into being at the earliest possible date, for there is no serious disagreement there. A few years ago the terms of such a treaty were agreed on in Paris, but after Mr. Vishinsky had agreed on the general terms, Molotov overruled him and Russia turned its back on the settlement.
At the foreign ministers conference the main subject for discussion, according to Soviet wishes, are not the need of disarmament, nor Germany, nor Austrian peace treaties. Molotov's whole proposition is built on the principle that the main subject to be discussed is China and its admission to the meeting of foreign ministers in Berlin with respect to which China has no interest or responsibility. In other words his desire or aim is not to deal with the problems of

External Affairs
Europe but to endeavour to arouse the peoples of Asia to the belief that we of the free nations have no interest in their problems, that our concern is elsewhere.
I should like to refer to a statement by Mr. Bidault in his opening speech at the meeting. With high purpose and with the realization of the animosities that have prevailed between France and Germany for generations, with the knowledge of the suffering and tragedy that has come to France through German aggression in two world wars, he took a stand for world peace- one of the noblest in European history. He stood for giving Germany an opportunity within EDC to make its contribution, become a nation and return to the ranks of nations who respect international law and responsibility. Mr. Bidault asked for a free election to take place. He said:
The peace treaty with Germany must be of such a nature as not only to provide a suitable conclusion to the war but to avoid sowing the seeds of a new conflict.
A little later on he said:
The French government believes that the evolution of West Germany during the last few years leads to the conclusion that the fate of democracy in Germany is linked with the association of Germany with the west.
His stand is in keeping with the finest traditions of world statesmanship and, if adopted, assures a new Europe and a strong bulwark against the advance of communism.
I shall refer now to two matters in the order in which the minister referred to them. First I should like to say something in regard to the United Nations. The minister indicated his belief that world peace was dependent on the United Nations. There have been shortcomings in the United Nations, owing in part to the charter and to the parts played by some of the member nations and I mean those of the communist bloc, who have used the United Nations not as an instrument of peace but rather as an instrument for propaganda. Weighed fairly, most people will admit that the United Nations has done an outstanding job in preserving world peace, culminating in the step that was taken to meet aggression in Korea. It has stopped several potential wars. It has removed festers of suspicion in various parts of the world. It has not done everything that was hoped for, but its record has its successes.
When I hear protests of peaceful aims by Molotov being made at the Berlin meeting my mind goes back to April, 1945, at San Francisco, when I was an adviser to the Conservative representative, Mr. Graydon, one of the members of the Canadian delegation
{Mr. Diefenbakei .J
to the San Francisco conference. I was moved by Molotov's words as he pictured that new world where aggression would be no more, as those who forget the record must be moved as they listen to Vishinsky declaiming in the United Nations.
In 1955 the United Nations charter can be revised. That is an important milestone in the history of the United Nations. The charter was written in the pre-atomic age, the days before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
What can parliament do to assist in making recommendations and suggestions for changes and amendments? Organizations with that end in view have been set up in Holland and in the United States of America. They are called commissions on charter amendments. I suggest that it would be worth the consideration of the external affairs committee to study the charter intensively so that recommendations and suggestions for amendment might be made to the government. No one can hope for the removal of the veto provisions which have emasculated the security council, but certainly provision should be made for giving the assembly a larger responsibility, if not complete responsibility, for the maintenance of peace and security. Consideration should be given to a new voting system in the assembly based on a system of weighted voting by which countries would be represented according to population and resources.
Then there are the provisions as to the admission of nations. Several are denied admission to the United Nations because of the opposition of the U.S.S.R. and its satellites. Austria, Italy, Portugal and Japan, and Germany potentially, are excluded from becoming members of the United Nations by the Soviet insistence on a package deal for the admission of their satellites.
I want to say a word in regard to NATO. I am sure that later on we will have an opportunity of hearing from the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton), for certainly the views expressed by the minister did not give a clear picture of NATO or of its difficulties. I ask the minister, what are the prospects of EDC being accepted by the legislative bodies of its several member nations in Europe? So far it has been approved by West Germany and Holland, and partially by Belgium. To what degree has any arrangement been made recently whereby in the event of any future war Canada's contribution in the main will be to keep the sea lanes open? That was recently stated to be the fact in an article in the New York Times of January 27. It stated that a pronounced change had been made for Canada

in the contribution she is to make to NATO. Certainly we have fallen far short of the targets set in Lisbon. I am not referring especially to Canada when I say that, for all the nations appear to be in that position.
What has the minister to say in regard to the pronouncement made recently by Mr. Dulles, one of the most striking pronouncements ever made, of retaliatory policy whereby the United States informed the U.S.S.R. that she will maintain the right to retaliate instantly at places chosen by her rather than allow the initiative to remain with the U.S.S.R. and communist countries, as has been the case? Have there been any discussions between Canada and the United States that this new policy means retaliation by atomic bombs? Was Mr. Dulles' statement to the effect that if France did not ratify EDC the United States might withdraw her troops from Europe made after consultation? And to what degree does it represent the viewpoint of the other nations within NATO? These are questions that I think deserve to be answered, for they have within them implications unusual and drastic.
To what extent was Canada consulted when that announcement of policy took place? Was there any connection between the announcement of that policy and Sir Winston Churchill's statement that if the Americans left Europe the British would, as well? These are questions which unanswered tend to disunity among the free nations. As the minister so well said, we must preserve our unity of purpose with the commonwealth and with the United States which, to use his words, is the leader of the free world.
Now a few words regarding the question of trade with the U.S.S.R. The minister has made a plea for unity. Yesterday in this house the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was asked whether or not there was any danger of the United States selling its surpluses by fire sale. The minister is reported on page 1540 of Hansard as having said:
I know of no plan for a fire sale in the United States. That country has a certain program that has dangers to Canada inherent in it if recklessly used, a program of giving assistance to foreign countries in the form of foodstuffs. We have reason to believe that it will be used with due regard to friendly countries who also have marketing problems. But, as I say, the situation is being watched carefully.
While the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the house was freeing the minds of the Canadian people from the fear of a fire sale of some of the $5 billion of farm products which the United States has on hand, the 83276-1014
External Affairs
Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) was at London, and according to the Canadian Press was reported to have said this:
. . . "fire-sale" methods of marketing "massive United States surpluses" of farm products are not in the interests of the underfed people of the world . . .
"Movement of massive United States surpluses . . . through give-away programs or through sales at cut prices . . . are almost bound to affect ordinary exports directly or indirectly".
The question of disposal of surplus farm products by fire sale or give-away deserves the serious attention of this government. It affects the welfare of millions of Canadians. If this policy, which the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out would be dangerous to us, is in fact carried out, it has inherent in it disastrous effects on Canada. Having regard to the spirit displayed by the minister when he described the relationship which should prevail between the United States and Canada, namely that we should not do unto them that which we would not want done unto ourselves, I believe the government has a responsibility to bring to the attention of the government of the United States the serious consequences to our economy which may or, I think, will result should such a dumping policy be brought into effect.
After all, Canada and the United States are together. We must stand together. Things that cause cleavages must be removed. Certainly the situation internationally will not be improved if, in order to assist nations in other parts of the world, the United States of America engages in a fire sale of farm products and thereby jeopardizes our prices, to the detriment of agriculture in general. Having regard to the attitude taken recently with regard to the export of oats to the United States, I think this problem will be solved. But I ask that it receive consideration forthwith, for disunity in economic affairs inevitably leads to disunity in the larger fields of international relations.
Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to China, and we come back to the oft-used argument that the people's government is merely communist in name but actually nationalistic in its inception and its principles. However that may be, one of the salient things being considered today by the foreign ministers in Berlin is the stand to be taken toward China. Is she to be recognized? Certainly recognition will be hard to justify, however much it may appeal legalistically to students of international law, so long as the people's government continues its program of virtual annexation of North Korea, supplying arms in Indo-China and apparently doing

External Affairs
everything it can to spread communism and disruption in other parts of Asia. While it is impossible to say with finality that China should never be recognized, a good case has not been made for recognition. I believe that if Britain and France had had before them in 1949 the situation that we have today, and the knowledge of events that have since taken place, recognition of China would, to say the least, have been delayed.
Personally I believe that we should not recognize China at this time. To say that we will never recognize her is to look too far into the future. I think that type of pre-vision is called "stochachistics", or guessing to be left to experts. In 1945 or 1946 we might have said that we would never admit Japan to friendship, and that Germany would never again be welcomed back into the family of nations. Events change thinking, but with the world situation what it is I believe that Canada would take a retrograde step should the government feel constrained to recognize China at this time. Indeed, I am going to quote the words of Mr. Dulles in his speech in Berlin three days ago when he said:
It is one thing to recognize evil as a fact. It is .another thing to take evil to one's breast and call it good.
That would be in my opinion the interpretation placed on such action by the vast majority of the people of Canada should recognition be given at this time.
I think the house is entitled to have full information with regard to Soviet trade offers, and the strategy that is being followed by the U.S.S.R. in endeavouring to open and extend trade channels among the free nations of the world. After all, history is a good teacher if we listen to her lessons. Lenin and the other leaders have been quoted, since 1922, as predicting that depressions will destroy the capitalistic system. Yet at a time when agricultural surpluses are being built up all over the world, and in the light of the fact that in the past those surpluses have almost inevitably led to recessions in the economic world, it is strange that the U.S.S.R. is offering to buy with gold, and to trade.
In many products today the seller's market has become the buyer's market. The U.S.S.R. has always predicted that surplus production would ultimately destroy the capitalist countries; yet faced with its existence they are offering markets for surplus products and extending trade with nations willing to trade.
In the past they have never traded in benevolence. Is today's attitude-its new look, if you will-a masquerade? They are

releasing their gold from its hidden coffers, and their gold supplies are second only to those amassed by the United States in Fort Knox. Many treasuries among the nations of Europe and elsewhere in the world want gold. Is it benevolence on the part of the U.S.S.R. that, when in our own country some people are predicting a depression because of these surpluses, they choose this as the vital moment to bail us out? If that be so, the new world has indeed been born.
It should be recalled that Malenkov is having difficulty within his own country because of food shortages. Last April he stated that his government would give more food and more freedom. Collective farming has failed. Food production is down. Is this offer to buy, to expand and extend trade, benevolence, or has it the nefarious purpose of separating us from the friendly countries of Europe by offering them that which they need more than anything else, a market for their products?
Certainly one cannot say that all trade should be excluded. Trade is permitted in non-strategic materials. I think the minister might explain what are non-strategic materials. The United States recently had an opportunity to sell 20,000 tons of butter to the U.S.S.R. The United States has a quarter of a billion pounds of butter on hand. The U.S.S.R. needs 150 million pounds. The explanation for not going through with the deal was that the price was not sufficient. What is Canada's attitude to this? Again I see a divergence, and again I ask for that unity among the ministers of the cabinet which we ask among the nations. On the one hand we have a press dispatch of the 4th of January to the effect that the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said that Canada is willing to increase trade with the U.S.S.R. in a limited list of commodities. On the other hand, we have the attitude displayed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs which is certainly not to the effect that there should be an expansion of trade.
The ambassador from the U.S.S.R. said some three weeks ago: "Don't worry about details at the moment; the main thing is to start trading". Certainly all of us hope for the day when trade will be universal, but do we not have to consider whether or not almost everything which we would supply would be strategic materials in the world of today when nations as a whole, not armies, are on the offensive in the war of ideas? The U.S.S.R. is taking textiles from France, selling iron and manganese to Britain, buying ships from West Germany, and has started to trade

with Greece, Denmark and Norway. Australia is importing Russian canned salmon and crabmeat.
There should be an enunciation by the government of Canada's policy regarding trade with the U.S.S.R., which is not so important materially if we are to judge by the trade of the past but certainly important in that consideration must be given at all times to the fact that if we supply them what they require as directed by the state we shall indeed be playing into their hands.
I ask the minister to say whether in his opinion the expansion of trade would consolidate the Malenkov regime. Which course are we to follow? Is he in a position to say whether, in the opinion of the officials of his department and of himself, this newly acquired desire of the U.S.S.R. is a bona fide desire to expand world trade or is designed to divide the free world, eventually to dominate it and finally to destroy it?
Can the minister give any assurance that if Canada or other NATO countries enter into expanded trade with Russia we will have assurance from the U.S.S.R. that those countries in Europe contiguous to it and friendly to us will not be subjected in the days ahead to the well known practice of the U.S.S.R. in the late twenties and early thirties of dumping excess goods on European markets, thereby destroying our markets and also our trade in various countries?
In Britain the federation of British industries has gone into this matter in considerable detail, and apparently the investigations have been made with the blessing of the United Kingdom government. I am not going to read the entire release issued by the United Kingdom information office on the 14th of January last, but I will read a few excerpts which I think particularly embody the general conclusions arrived at. The report contains the following:
. . . there is, in our opinion, no ground for thinking that east-west trade, including trade with China, can in the foreseeable future account for more than a comparatively modest proportion of the United Kingdom's total volume of trade. . . It is our view that, largely owing to the Korean war and the intensification of the strategic controls, enterprise has been discouraged and a feeling engendered that there is something wrong and unpatriotic about east-west trade, even in those items excluded by the embargoes. This is emphatically a feeling to be dispelled.
I am giving both sides at the moment. After viewing contentions on both sides of the argument, the conclusions are summarized in these words:
(i)	that trade with countries of the eastern bloc is likely permanently to offer fewer opportunities than before the war, and that trade with China has
External Affairs
only modest scope for expansion on account of her limited capacity as an exporter and earner of sterling coupled with the reduced market for Chinese exports;
(ii)	that such opportunities of east-west trade as exist in non-strategic goods should, nevertheless, be pursued without any inhibitions arising from political considerations;
(iii)	that members of the federation in their dealings with Russia, countries of the eastern bloc, and China, should avoid channels which are likely to turn matters of commerce pure and simple to account for the purposes of communist political propaganda.
I feel the Canadian people have a right to know the attitude to be taken by the Canadian government on this important matter. Certainly the trade existent now is of no consequence. According to a recent Canadian Press dispatch, in the first ten months of 1953 we exported $406 worth of goods to the U.S.S.R. and we imported $416,000 worth, mostly furs. What is the U.S.SR. prepared to ship us? What has she available? Is it a fact that about the only products of which she has a surplus are oil, coal and timber, in respect of which we in Canada are looking for markets?
However that may be, Canadian people in industry, agriculture and labour are looking for a statement by the government on its stand in this matter. Certainly if trade is to be expanded the definition of non-strategic materials will have to be drawn with greater care.
In conclusion, I would say that we in the opposition intend in the days ahead to follow the course which has been ours throughout the years. We intend to endeavour to secure, in our external relations, a unity of purpose, a degree of uniform policy, so that in our relationships with the countries of the world we shall be able to discharge our responsibilities in the days ahead with firm and abiding purpose and with good will to all nations who will reciprocate.
Mr. M. J. Cold we 11 (Roseiown-Biggar): I
should first like to associate myself, Mr. Speaker, both with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), in expressing the regret we all feel that Gordon Graydon was removed from us and can no longer participate in the work of this very important department. I should like to associate myself also with what the minister said about the late Hume Wrong. Like many of those in the house I have known him for a number of years and appreciate the remarkable work he did for Canada in those days when, with the minister and a group of young men brought into the department very largely by the late Mr. O. D. Skelton, the policy

External Affairs
was pursued of building up Canada's Department of External Affairs and giving us recognition throughout the world as a selfgoverning nation.
I should like also to say something about Mr. Patterson, such a delightful personality. Some hon. members sitting here this afternoon had the opportunity of being associated with him at the United Nations this autumn. It came as a great shock to us to learn that, going for a week end holiday to his residence in Boston, shortly after his arrival there he died. He was a fine, Christian gentleman, with whom many of us were happy to be associated at the United Nations.
This afternoon the minister said there was unanimity in this house on the fundamental principles underlying the policies of his department. That is true. Those fundamental principles, I take it, are the principles of security and peace. But having agreed on the principles, there is plenty of room for disagreement on those aspects that many of us think should be the policies by which both security and peace may be attained.
This afternoon I shall say some things in connection with our external affairs that are said in common with progressive and anti-communist movements and parties all across the world, not only in our own commonwealth but in the Far East and in the countries of western Europe. Let no one say that because some of the communist parties have picked up some of these policies from the progressive democratic socialist parties of the world, anything I may say in this house is communist propaganda.
The debate on external affairs can, as usual, I think serve a very useful purpose at this time because it gives the minister an opportunity of discussing our relations with other countries. It gives an opportunity to members of the house to express some views concerning recent developments in the world situation, developments I may say both diplomatically and militarily. Of course these are inseparable, for if diplomatic relations improve it should be possible to reduce our vast expenditures on various phases of rearmament.
On May 5 last, as the minister said, the last extended debate on external affairs took place in this house. I remarked then that there seemed to have been a sharp change, both in Russian propaganda and in Russian tactics, in the short nine or ten weeks that had followed since the death of Joseph Stalin. I think it is generally agreed throughout the world that, in the last 11 months or so since that event, startling changes have occurred in the Soviet union. Whatever we may think are the reasons

for these changes, and perhaps for events like the liquidation of Beria and his immediate associates, there has been an easing of tension in the world since the death of Stalin.
I think that as a rule mankind has breathed a sigh of relief, and countless millions pray that, however slow the process, we may be able to move toward an era in which, little by little and bit by bit, the outstanding problems between the powerful nations will be settled not by force of arms, not by making threats against one another, but by intelligent negotiation.
Within Russia, as the minister said this afternoon, there have been changes-great changes-in the economic outlook of the new government. And I say to my hon. friend from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and other members of the house that I believe one of the means of achieving peaceful understanding, of achieving peace by negotiation, is to do whatever we can to encourage trade between the nations.
Now, do not misunderstand me. I do not believe we should supply a potential aggressor with strategic materials, but I do believe that the visits of British businessmen, a large number of whom we are told are over there at the moment, or of businessmen from any of the western countries of the world, can do no less than bring about some better understanding on both sides of the iron curtain.
To contemplate war, with the frightful weapons now at hand, is I believe to contemplate universal catastrophe. Because of the dire threat which has overhung the world in recent years, nations equally fearful of such a struggle may find ways and means of resolving outstanding problems and difficulties by intelligent approach and by negotiation. And I say that the gestures made by the Russians at this time, paralleled by gestures made by the President of the United States, and certainly paralleled by several statements made recently by Sir Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, all taken together have given great hope to the world that we may be entering upon an era, perhaps very much prolonged but nevertheless productive of peaceful negotiations and ultimate understanding among the nations of the world.
I think it is wrong for any of us, at a time when there are possibilities of such understanding and negotiation, to use language or threats which may make negotiation and understanding still more difficult. In saying this I am not minimizing the dangers that exist. But those dangers of course are apparent to most of our people; and I believe

they are quite apparent to most of the statesmen who have the responsibility for maintaining the security of their own countries and for promoting the peace of the world.
In the last ten months, as I have said, important changes have occurred in the attitude of Soviet leaders. Again, whether this is a new tactic or not-and these approaches may well be a new tactic-we should be prepared to welcome any such change in attitude; and at the same time we should retain the strong position we have attained. In retaining that strong position we should not, however, lose any opportunity to reach agreement on such issues, however minor they may be, as become possible of settlement through negotiation.
Let us remember that until very recently Russian leaders have said nothing that could be construed as being friendly to any of the democratic powers. Sometimes their references have been designedly insulting, making co-operation virtually impossible. And those of us who have been at the United Nations from time to time know how true that statement is. But I should say at once that leading statesmen in the democratic nations, and particularly in the United States, have at almost every opportunity denounced Russian leaders and the Soviet union in almost equally unmeasured terms.
It is I think regrettable that whenever proposals have been made by either side for co-operation, newspapers in Russia and in the United States, as well as in our own and other countries, have jumped to the conclusion immediately, depending upon which side made the proposal, of course, that such proposal should be denounced, thus making negotiation almost impossible. In Russia, the organ of the Soviet union, Pravda, has been guilty time and time again. And while that organ of the Soviet union has been more restrained recently, many leading newspapers in the United States have continued to pursue a policy which could have no other effect than to prejudice the possibility of peaceful negotiation. I think that was particularly true as we approached the meeting of the foreign ministers at Berlin. Believing as we do in a free press, we also believe that it should be a responsible press, rather than one unnecessarily provocative in its criticism, particularly concerning pending negotiations among the great powers.
Those of us who were at the United Nations last autumn shared, I think, the view that was very generally held there, that world tension had decreased somewhat. The minister himself said that this was so this afternoon. There were still evidences of truculence on the part of some of the great powers, notably on
External Affairs
the part of the United States and the Soviet union. But there was less bitterness in debate, and a desire on the part of most of the nations represented there to arrive at solutions of some of the outstanding problems.
I should like to say that in my opinion the United Nations has been and is the greatest barrier we now have against the outbreak of war. Many minor disputes have been settled through United Nations agencies, and the forum provided for the great powers has undoubtedly prevented the outbreak of war on a world-wide scale. Certainly it has prevented the outbreak of war among some of the minor nations. In other words, in the sharp issues which have arisen in the Far East and in Europe as well as elsewhere, the United Nations has provided a forum for discussion, and to that extent has stood as a barrier against the outbreak of war.
I want to say how disturbed I have been during the past few days to see that one of our departments of education, that in the province of British Columbia, has withdrawn from circulation among the schools the United Nations association monthly bulletin. The bulletin, which has been circulated in all the provinces, including British Columbia, is now being withdrawn, according to a statement emanating from Victoria. I wonder what is happening in that province when I read in the press that the mayor of Victoria and some of his associates are actually suggesting the burning of books they dislike. I wonder how far in the direction of totalitarianism we are moving in this country when we see that kind of thing in a province like British Columbia.
I would like to see the bulletin of the United Nations association more widely read. It cannot be called a communist organization, you know, because it is headed by General Burns, whom we all know favourably in this city. We believe that while, in view of the world situation in recent years, it has been necessary to enter into arrangements for mutual defence, such as those envisaged in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it is equally important to use every means within our power to promote the economic and social well-being of people everywhere; and again, may I say, through the United Nations agencies, and through our own Colombo plan to supplement those agencies.
In that field we believe too little has been done. When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established we in this party urged our government to suggest an article committing the signatories to mutual economic aid for their general welfare. Thus article 2 of the treaty became one of the most important considerations which led us to support NATO. And at every opportunity we have

External Affairs
criticized the organization because it has failed to implement that article in the manner in which we feel it should have been implemented. I say to the government that at the present time they should be more insistent on the implementation of article 2 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We believe that the policy of confining aid within the organization to military aid, which has largely been done, is not only wrong but may ultimately defeat the very objective of the treaty itself.
The difficulties arising in France and in Italy, to mention two of the NATO nations, are due to the economic conditions of the people within those nations; and, particularly in the case of France, the vast military expenditures on rearmament and on the operations in Indo-China, which apparently France herself is very anxious to bring to an end by negotiation. The economic situation in those NATO associates of ours, if not relieved, may lead to the breakdown of the whole anticommunist front among the democratic powers. Therefore once again I urge our government to give leadership, both within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United Nations, for greater emphasis in the economic field.
We believe that with the easing of tension and the achieving of our rearmament targets we are in a position where we can reduce our expenditures for military defence and use the relief obtained not for the reduction of income and other taxes within Canada, but to a large extent at least for the giving of more economic aid under the United Nations' technical assistance program and the Colombo plan.
Let me add that I believe Canada has a unique opportunity of giving such leadership at the present time. In saying what I am about to say I want to have it differentiated from anything in relation to trying to make trade out of the Prime Minister's departure on his tour. The Prime Minister is about to leave on a good-will tour around the world. I said earlier this afternoon that I hoped that he would act as an ambassador of good will on behalf of the Canadian people. What I said earlier I should like to repeat on behalf of my colleagues and myself. We wish him a safe, pleasant and productive journey.
I am sure that he will realize that in conveying messages of good will in the countries he visits he will be conveying the sentiments of all the Canadian people. But I am going to suggest this, that he might demonstrate our good will in a very practical way. At the moment we have vast quantities of food available to a hungry world if they

had the means to purchase it. Besides this we have, for example, at least one industry in which there is considerable unemployment, but which is equipped to produce machines for the production of food in large quantity. I am not suggesting that we sell anything; I am suggesting that we give something.
On December 26 last the London Economist, which is one of the foremost papers of its kind in the world, published a report on conditions in southeast Asia. This authoritative newspaper pointed out that as a result of the cessation of hostilities in Korea and the easing of world tension, countries in southeast Asia were facing a situation which to say the least is most discouraging. The fall of prices for their products and the maintenance of high prices for capital and other equipment they need from abroad will, the Economist says, necessarily interfere with the achievement of the standards of living originally planned when, for example, the Colombo plan was adopted. The Economist says that one of two things must be done, and I am going to quote the exact words as they appeared in the paper:
There must either be greater temporary sacrifice on the part of the people themselves . . .
And heaven knows how much more sacrifice the undernourished, underfed, underprivileged people of India, Pakistan, Ceylon and the other Far Eastern countries can undergo. I continue:
... or there must be an increase in the amount of external aid which in any case has never been guaranteed as adequate to close the gap between intention and availability.
Our suggestion to the Prime Minister is that, in view of the circumstances and the need to raise the standards of living, if we are to offset communist propaganda in those areas he make the generous offer of gifts of food, particularly perhaps wheat of which we have a large quantity, and instruments of production such as farm machinery, to the governments of those countries. Those gifts- I emphasize "gifts"-would be in addition to the Colombo plan, and regarded as part of our defence budget, and marketed by the governments of the receiving countries so the proceeds could be used in carrying forward projects designed to increase their own production and raise their standards of living.
This would not have the effect of dumping goods across the world. We believe that it would not have the effect of depressing the prices of those commodities on the world market. Why? Because the recipient countries are not in a position to purchase those supplies abroad, their external purchasing power having been reduced by the drastic fall in

prices of their exports. It is not a question of replacing something they may buy from abroad, but something we might be able to give them and which they have not the means to buy abroad.
Let me say that when I suggest a reduction should be made in our expenditures on armaments, I am merely reiterating the opinion which seems to have been expressed and has been interpreted by the newspapers as having been expressed by Lord Alexander, the Minister of Defence in the United Kingdom, who is reported by the newspapers yesterday as announcing that a plan is to be introduced which:
. . . seeks to keep Britain's defence expenditure, now more than 40 per cent of the budget or about $98 a person annually, within control.
The New York Times service, quoted by the Montreal Gazette, says this of the minister's statement:
The new plan was interpreted by sources close to the government as a reflection of its belief that the immediate danger of war with the Soviet union has receded steadily in the last year and that time has come to re-plan defence in anticipation of a considerable period of uneasy balance between east and west.	!
And when we remember that President Eisenhower in his message to congress quite recently suggested a 10 per cent cut in expenditures on armaments of that country, and when according to this morning's paper the Department of National Defence of Canada is to cut the defence expenditure recommended to this parliament by more than 5 per cent, I think it underlines what I have just been saying. But it seems to me that the fact the United States can cut its expenditures by 10 per cent indicates that we should be able to cut ours probably by about the same amount, and 10 per cent of $2 billion used for economic aid in the countries where communist propaganda is prevalent and effective because of the distress conditions, poverty, misery and want that exist there, would be one of the best means of defence on behalf of the democratic nations that we could find; and I make that suggestion. I say we believe that Canada should whenever possible give a lead in promoting policies that will lead to the removal of fear of war and the deliverance of mankind from the ever-present fear of starvation and want which afflict millions of people all across the world.
Last spring President Eisenhower, both in his fireside talk in April and in his message to congress on May 5, proposed a program which met with acclaim everywhere in the world. For the first time it was proposed by the President of the United States that greater 83276-102
External Affairs
emphasis should be placed upon development of technical aid and assistance to backward areas, particularly in Asia.
Since then I am sorry to say-and my experience at the United Nations and my observation of the policy of the United States delegation lead me to think that this is so- there has been in the United States a reversion to the previous emphasis on military preparedness and the securing of bases far beyond the borders of that country. A few days ago I noted that the president of Turkey declared that his country would welcome economic aid rather than more military equipment and supplies.
Then the rumours that the United States was seeking an agreement with Pakistan for bases and the supply of armaments caused great alarm in India as well as, may I say, among the peoples and governments associated with our democratic cause. Peaceful negotiations are made more difficult when rumours of this kind go mainly or partly uncontradicted. The alarm in India was widespread and expressed by Prime Minister Nehru in no uncertain terms. Anything which drives India away from the association she now has with the West is not only dangerous but in my opinion may be disastrous to the world.
I agree with the minister and with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who both recognized the importance of having with us the countless millions of people who are in southeast Asia. If we lose them we have lost the bulk of the world's manhood and womanhood to the Soviet union. So I say that the proposal for the United States to take bases in Pakistan and to arm Pakistan is a suicidal policy on the part of the United States, and is equally suicidal for those of us who are associated with the United States in the democratic cause.
I say that negotiations are made more difficult with the Soviet union by such reports because to them at least they are indications of aggressive feelings on the part of the leading power among the democracies. I wonder what we would think if the Soviet union suggested to Mexico that she should establish bases in that country. I wonder what we would say if the Soviet union requested also to establish bases in Cuba or in other places and islands around us. I wonder what we would say, and I wonder how we could feel that negotiations proposed under those circumstances were sincere. I say that every effort should be made to prevent a policy of the description I have just mentioned being put into effect. Our government should take

External Affairs
a leading part as a member of the commonwealth, as a member of the United Nations and as a close neighbour and friend of the United States, in advising the United States against such a policy whenever an opportunity occurs.
I want to say something about the release of prisoners in Korea. The minister said they had been released as civilians. The manner in which the press has treated these releases certainly has caused considerable concern to a good many people. I do not propose to discuss the protracted negotiations which failed to reach agreement concerning this matter. We know that dealing with the communists is difficult, but we also know that Canada and some other nations believed that the inclusion of India in the proposed peace conference was desirable, and that if India had been admitted it is possible the conference might have been held. We voted that way, but the United States was able to muster sufficient votes among its South American friends to prevent the two-thirds majority required for the inclusion of India, so India was left out.
We have been told that the North Koreans and Chinese communists who refused to return to their countries have been liberated, but if we can believe the press stories it is a rather strange kind of liberation. It puts the North Koreans who refused to return to North Korea in lorries and transfers them to South Korean camps for screening, and ships Chinese who refused to go back to China to Formosa for similar screening. This appears to be a method of conscription which left no opportunity to the former prisoners of war to become civilians. One is bound to ask if Canada agreed to this method of liberation. In view of this episode is it any wonder that the Chinese and the North Koreans fear that the proposed peace negotiations may be but the prelude to an attack by Syngman Rhee and Chiang Kai-shek on China proper?
These are matters which cause grave misgivings among those of us who are anxious to see peace and understanding promoted among the nations.
Then look at Berlin. At the present time the foreign ministers of the United States, the United Kingdom, France and the Soviet union are meeting in Berlin. We all hope that at least some success will be attained there, but again prior to the meeting powerful voices in the United States and large sections of the press were bitterly denouncing the calling of the conference and dooming it to failure. This, it should be said, was in the sharpest possible contrast to statements made by public men in the United Kingdom

and France, where the opinions expressed were so different from those expressed by powerful and loud voices in the United States, and by sections of the press.
I say this as a friend of the United States because I think there are groups of people in that country who are making it difficult for the democratic powers to achieve their objectives in ironing out some of the difficulties existing in the world that may lead to war. It seems to us that in dealing with a nation which does not believe that the press and speech in the democracies are both free, comments made on forthcoming conferences should be thoroughly responsible.
We believe that Germany today represents what may become a festering sore in the very heart of Europe. As long as the country is divided into two sections there is little hope of building a Germany which can co-operate in promoting the peace and progress of the world. In our opinion the longer she is divided the more likely it is that former nazis in West Germany will regain much of their influence over the West German people and, on the other hand, that the communist leaders in East Germany will be more firmly entrenched, making unity of the country and peace in Europe still more difficult to achieve. May I say that I thoroughly agree that any unification of Germany, as was suggested by the minister in his speech this afternoon, cannot be a unification of two governments, or a government set up from those two governments. It can only be a unification if it is preceded by free elections held under the supervision of the United Nations. Certainly proposals for the rearmament of West Germany before unification would in our opinion-and let there be no misunderstanding; we are not following the communist line when we say this, we are expressing the views of the great socialist and labour movement in Europe and across the world-have a disastrous effect on hopes for the peaceful development of the European community.
One can understand the attitude of France, and the hesitation she has in joining EDC, because not twice but three times during the last hundred years she has been invaded by German armies, causing not only great suffering but terrible losses of life and property. On the other hand, we recognize that the western nations cannot assume all the responsibility for the defence of Germany should aggression occur. Indeed, the very rejuvenation of Germany-the very fact that her industries are now able to export vast quantities of goods, that she has been able to build homes for her people and that she

has been able to put new and modern machinery in her factories-is due to the fact that none of her men have been taken out of production and put into the armed forces, that none of her industries have been engaged in the manufacture of war materials and that none of her finances have been used for military purposes which, while necessary, are wasteful.


Lester Bowles Pearson: She has to make a large contribution to the occupation costs.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; she has to make
large contributions to the occupation costs, but even those have not been comparable to what France and the United Kingdom have been paying in their rearmament programs and in the maintenance of armies, involving loss of productive manpower, to support NATO and prevent aggression in the world.
As I say, we recognize immediately that the western nations cannot be expected to assume all the responsibility for the defence of Germany should aggression occur. Consequently, while opposed to the rearmament of Germany, we believe that after unification a disarmed, united Germany might have her neutrality guaranteed by the United Nations and particularly-by an agreement among the powers-by Russia and the western powers. But that agreement is some distance off, at least.
In our opinion, however, whatever is done to integrate German manpower into a western European defence system-and that may be necessary-neither the German armament industry nor German leadership should be permitted to revive once again the military aspirations of a new Germany. That, it seems to us, must be prevented by every possible means. Certainly we should not agree at all to any likelihood of a German army, under German command, with the old officers of the nazi regime; and what is more important, I suppose, in a way, is that the non-commissioned officers who are in close contact with the men should be carefully screened to see that they were not supporters of the old nazi regime. Any such troops should be organized under non-German military commanders and non-German staff.
This afternoon my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) mentioned the point that the United States is contemplating withdrawal of her troops from Europe, in large part, and substituting new machines and new and devastating instruments of destruction as a means of defence. In his address to the general assembly of the United Nations, President Eisenhower clearly outlined the devastating effects that the use 83276-102J
External Affairs
of such weapons would involve. For example -and I am going to quote him directly-he said:
A single air group, whether afloat or land-based, can now deliver-
That is the weapons in the possession of the United States.
-on an available target, a destructive cargo (of bombs) exceeding the power of all bombs that fell on Britain in all of world war II.
That is, whether afloat or land-based, one group of planes could deliver a destructive cargo of bombs exceeding the power of all the bombs that fell on all of Britain in all of world war II. Of the United States stockpile of atomic weapons he said something else, and I quote again. He said that it-
*-exceeds by many times the explosive equivalent of the total of all bombs and all shells that came from every plane and every gun in every theatre of war through all the years of world war II.
Then President Eisenhower went on to say that the United States had no monopoly of this great power, and that while he believed in American superiority in numbers of such weapons, the facts are that the Soviet union has a growing stockpile too. He then made a proposal which I believe every human being must welcome, namely that this great destructive force can and should be developed for the benefit of all mankind. He therefore proposed that the governments principally involved-and he qualified it by "to the extent permitted by elementary prudence", and I think he was right in doing that-as he put it, should begin now and continue to make, from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials, joint contributions to an international atomic energy agency set up under the aegis of the United Nations. This agency, he went on to say, would be charged not only with the responsibility for the storage and protection of the contributed materials, but would mobilize international experts to develop and apply atomic energy for the peaceful purposes of the world.
This, of course, I may say, is a departure, and a fundamental one, from the proposals made from time to time before the atomic energy commission of the United Nations and, in my opinion, if agreement could be reached it would represent a great step forward in the peaceful development of this great new source of energy.
As Mr. Churchill said a short time ago, the very terror of these weapons to which the President referred might be something of an insurance against their use in war; but the important thing is not only, as some suggest, to outlaw the use of such weapons

External Affairs
*-and the outlawing of such weapons, of course, may be quite problematical if a nation is faced with defeat in war-but to find ways and means of banishing war and the threat of war. That is the only insurance against war.
I repeat that in our opinion this cannot be done by threats of the use of force; nor by the building up of armies, navies and air forces, though under certain circumstances they may be necessary; nor by securing bases here and there all across the world and filling them with devastating weapons of war. In our opinion this can only be done by negotiation among the great powers and by rapidly raising the standards of living everywhere in the world. I want to emphasize again that to my mind, in the ultimate, that is the best defence that democracy has; I refer to the raising of standards of living of the underprivileged in the undeveloped areas of the world.
The foreign ministers in Berlin . are reported to be likely to discuss not only the matter of atomic weapons and the Russian proposal for outlawing them but the wider problem of disarmament. I know something of the difficulties they will face, because I was present at the United Nations in 1946 when our own Prime Minister, then our minister of external affairs, foreshadowed the organization of the Atlantic community for the first time because of the failure of the great powers to do anything in implementing that chapter of the charter which called for negotiations among their military staffs. When, at the conclusion of that assembly, disarmament was proposed, we saw the brushing aside of that proposal by Mr. Molotov and the gestures made by Sir Hartley Shawcross at the same time to the effect that Britain was prepared to give to the United Nations the keys to her factories, the right to pull up the blinds and see exactly what they were doing in order that everyone might understand the problem and come to some arrangement with regard to disarmament.
Russian proposals in the past have been unacceptable but perchance under the new regime-and I say "perchance"-more satisfactory proposals to the world might come and might be considered. We might make more satisfactory proposals also.


Mr. Stick:: I do not believe it can be done.


Major James William Coldwell: May I say this to my hon. friend from Newfoundland with regard to that sort of thing. If, the moment one suggests that it might be possible to do something, there is to be the shaking of heads and the saying that it cannot be done, then

it never will be done. I do not believe in that kind of thing. I do not believe, either, that as individuals or as a government we should take such an attitude.


Mr. Sluder:: It will never be done by the socialists.


Major James William Coldwell: My hon. friend says that it will never be done by the socialists. Let me tell him that the great act of statesmanship that brought India into the world as a nation and kept her on our side was undertaken by a socialist government. I just want to tell my hon. friend that. In any event, it is our hope that Canada will use her influence, whenever it is possible to do so, to secure the widest possible measures of disarmament.
I must conclude, because my time is nearly up. There are many other problems that could have been discussed, some of which arose at the United Nations last autumn. I hope that some of my colleagues will address themselves to some of these problems. Suffice it to say that on several occasions I wished that Canada had taken a stronger attitude regarding some of the problems before the United Nations last autumn. To mention one or two of them, there are the situations in Morocco and Tunis and the threats to human freedom in the Union of South Africa.
I think those are matters which affect not only the welfare of masses of humanity but, in the ultimate, the peace of the world. I should like to see Canada give more leadership in endeavouring to solve these problems than we have seemed inclined to give.
I want to say to the minister and the government that I appreciate the opportunity that has been afforded by setting aside this day to discuss some of these problems. I have tried to place before the house views which may not be generally shared by all hon. members, but which nonetheless are shared by millions of people throughout the world who are not communists, and I believe they are worthy of consideration.


Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, I also feel that I should express appreciation to the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) for making it possible for us to discuss today these very important matters relating to external affairs. I listened with a great deal of interest to what the minister called his general and discursive survey of world affairs. I enjoyed it. He took us on another of the tours on which he so often takes us, and while he did not get clear around the world this time

at least he gave us a glimpse of what is behind the curtain of time, perhaps more than anything else, and that we do appreciate.
I want to say at once that we join with him in mourning the passing of two great Canadian servants, Mr. Hume Wrong and Mr. Patterson. The minister's department is going to suffer as a consequence of the passing of these men who in the past proved themselves to be most capable servants and made great contributions to the favourable relationships that Canada now enjoys with other countries.
I missed today the good-humoured and well-reasoned speech usually delivered by the late hon. member for Peel, who was the spokesman for the Conservative party. But I think on this very first occasion the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) has demonstrated that he is a worthy successor. Many of the things he brought before us today proved not only interesting but challenging, and I shall have something to say about a few of his comments before I am finished.
I think I would perhaps be neglecting my duty if I did not make brief comment on such important things as the question of German rearmament, NATO, and so on. Without going over all the arguments, or even introducing any further argument, I should say right away that I do not see how in the world the western world is going to be able to meet the challenge of the communist areas unless Germany is made capable of taking a very important part in her own defence and the defence of western Europe. Much as I have feared the rearmament of Germany and have wished that it could be otherwise, I do not see any other answer to the security of western Europe than to rearm Germany, take her into the European defence community, if that is possible, and see to it as far as we can that a rearmed Germany is never able to use her new-found or refound strength for aggressive purposes.
I think we also have to rebuild Austria. I believe it was a mistake in the first place to dismember the Austro-Hungarian empire, and I think the world is beginning to understand that that is so. We feel the need of Austria today and of her steadfastness and great ability in the western concert of nations.
As I listened to the minister this afternoon I wondered, as perhaps many other hon. members did, what is being done about those ethnic groups behind the iron curtain who all during the years have been opposed to totalitarianism in any form, who have been the champions of liberty, but are now held captive by the U.S.S.R. and her satellites. I wondered if anything had been done to make
External Affairs
it possible for them to make their contribution because, after all, I think one of the greatest contributions to the downfall of imperialist communism throughout the world is going to be the work of those ethnic groups who still love their freedom and are determined to regain it. I suppose the minister could have said something about that, but naturally he could not cover the whole orbit today.
Although I have little criticism to make of the minister's speech and find little wrong with it, he did leave me without an answer to a number of important questions, questions that almost every thinking person must be asking himself at this time. The first of these would be: Has the United Nations effort in Korea served even slightly to insulate the world against a third global war, or has it served to bring such a conflict nearer? Maybe he cannot answer that. That may be an assignment that no person could possibly carry out today. But it is something that many people are asking, and I think with good reason.
A second question: Have we learned anything of real value to the human race as a consequence of the billions of dollars of material wealth spent and the many thousands of gallant lives lost in the Korean conflict? If so, what is it that we have learned and how can we make use of these lessons in the future?
A third question:	Who has thus far come
off victor in Korea, and why? Fourth: What hope is there that a Korean peace treaty will be agreed upon and signed? In the long negotiations ahead on that particular matter, how far will the United Nations go in yielding to communist demands and what effect will those concessions have, if they are made, in strengthening the communist part of the world and weakening the free part?
These are matters of grave concern to me because, after all, mankind today needs guideposts and iron rods to which to hold. It seems to me that if we realize anything at all we must realize that the objective of communist imperialism is to become boss of the world by any means that is available. Consequently anything that strengthens the communist part of the world will weaken our part of the world by just that much.
Our guide in determining our position on any important question, it seems to me, should be what position can we take that will strengthen the free world and contribute to the weakening of communist imperialism? We in the free nations have been blind to that guide for many years. Certainly we have not kept it clearly before us in the negotiations that have taken place or in the

External Affairs
development of our policies. The tragic result of that neglect has been a constantly expanding and growing communist menace to the freedom, happiness and security of the world. The western nations have been too ready to grant concessions. Many of our leading men have allowed themselves to be blinded to the realities of the situation, perhaps in a measure because they have allowed their advisory councils to be packed with unfaithful, subversive people who have been guilty of perfidy and treason on some occasions.
The fifth question that is in my mind is this. What are we working for as a nation? By that I mean what is the real objective of our Canadian foreign policy? What do we want to achieve-let us give ourselves a reasonable time-say in the next 20 years? I should think that a clear-cut and forthright answer to that question alone would be refreshing, and might serve to arouse hope and faith in the Canadian people. In my judgment there was never a time when hope and faith so needed to be aroused as it does today. This, and perhaps a good many other vital questions, the minister left unanswered in his speech. I realize that, as an excuse, it can be said he did not have time to deal with everything. We did not expect him to do that. Perhaps in the course of rebuttal, if lie gives any, or in the near future he may Tie able to deal with some of these very important matters.
' Even the things the minister did say today left us, at least some of us, with a feeling that we had not made very much progress over the years. Now, I hasten to pay the minister a compliment because I do not want him to think for one moment that I am saying what I have said just to be difficult and carping. Speaking to the Canadian public relations society in Montreal on January 5 of this year, the minister had this to say about foreign policy, and I quote his words as I received them in a report of his speech:
But in the long run, a foreign policy which has a sound moral basis will prevail over one which has not, providing we build on that base a structure of strength with freedom.
I was struck with those words, and I want to deal with them. If that is the wellspring from which our whole external policy arises, then I must admit it gives me some feeling of confidence and hope for the future. I do not think we can go very far wrong if we make absolutely certain that we do build our foreign policy on a moral basis, and one of strength and freedom. It is against the background the minister outlined that we should attempt to measure Canada's foreign policy. I think we should dig into it and find out for ourselves whether, in fact, it has a

sound moral basis; whether we are, in reality, building on that moral basis a structure of strength with freedom. Perhaps we are; but if we are to know that, then the elements of our foreign policy will have to be much more clearly stated than we have heard them so far.
For almost 15 years now the world has been enveloped in war. For most of those years there has existed somewhere in the world armed conflict, which we called "hot war". For the last few years we have experienced a combination of "hot war", such as in Korea and Indo-China, and "cold war", which is the battle for men's minds in the ideological or psychological field over the whole world. People generally, I find, are yearning for peace. They are anxiously scanning every sign, every portent, to discover whether there is indeed any possibility for peace. Many people everywhere are inclined to hook on to any proposition which would seem to hold some possibility of peace in the near future. Right now it seems to be the fashion to suggest meetings with the Russians or with the Chinese or with some other communist group. Everyone seems, evidently, to think that if we can get down to a conference with the communists we can work out a basis for real peace. I have heard that for many months.
I was keenly interested, therefore, in an article which appeared in the January 29 issue of U.S. News and World Report. This article appears under the heading "Talk with the communists; 120 million words, little gain by us." I hasten to say that I have not checked these figures, and they may not be accurate. I think perhaps that even if they are proven inaccurate they do illustrate very well the point I wanted to make. There are some rather arresting facts produced in the article, which I think it might be well if hon. members would consider for just a moment.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Solon Earl Low: Mr. Speaker, at the dinner hour I was about to place before the house some rather arresting facts that were contained in an article which appeared in the January 29 issue of U.S. News and World Report. I made it clear, sir, that I had not checked the figures in the article; but I did say that even allowing for a substantial margin of error in them, the article would illustrate the point I wanted to make, and illustrate it very well indeed.

I should like to take just a few minutes to place these facts and figures before the house, particularly as they relate to this feeling on the part of so many people throughout the world that if they could just get down to discussions, conferences with the communists, everything could be worked out very well, and that peace would be coming soon and easily. An analysis of this article shows that in the eight post-war years more than 120 million words have been spoken in formal official talks with the communists. There has been no time in the eight years when talks were not going on in some place or another with communist countries, and the one tangible result to date has been a truce in Korea, a truce that the communists considered a victory for themselves.
Out of all this experience one rather striking conclusion has been drawn, and it is this. Few words are required if the communists are getting what they want, but words in endless profusion are required to lead to any result if the communists are not getting what they want. It is amazing to note that just before the present meeting with the Russians over the question of Germany, 525,000 words were spoken in 50 hours of talks just in an effort to decide on the spot at which the big four conference would be held. And there was no result. The Americans, British and French then submitted an offer that appeared to be much closer to the Russian terms, and after only a few dozen words were spoken everything was settled in short order.
If we go back to Yalta, it is said that it took over 220,000 words of talk in just seven sessions of conference to give Russia dominance in vast areas of the world. At Potsdam only 408,000 words were spoken. On that occasion Russia got what she wanted in Germany, and as a consequence today something like 17 million Germans are slaves to the Russian machine in that part of Germany.
In contrast to this, in an effort to bring about an Austrian peace treaty we learn that 11,900,000 words have been spoken in 378 full-dress meetings over a period of eight years, and without any agreement nor, it seems to me, the possibility of any agreement so far as can be seen now. It appears that Russia has not yet managed to get what she wants in this case, and therefore she is going to go on talking, and continue to go on talking. When we speak of trying to obtain unity for Germany, which for some time now has been divided into the east and west zones, let us remember that there have
External Affairs
been 1,380 meetings at which 43,500,000 words have been spoken, but again with no result.
The reason appears to be that the Russian terms have not been met. I suppose if we were to soften up and make concessions, as we have done in some other places in the world, it would not take long to reach an agreement. The famous Korean negotiations involved, I am told, 575 formal meetings at which it is said that 18,100,000 words were spoken. And that does not tell us how much doodling was done in absolute silence, with one side glaring across at the other and perhaps saying nothing. These meetings were carried on over a period of nearly two years, without any progress. At the end of that time terms were fixed that apparently met the conditions laid down by the Chinese communists, and thereafter the truce came very quickly. Following the armistice, talks about peace in Korea went ahead for some time, but they have now broken down because the United States is not willing to sit there day after day, month after month, year after year and listen to debate by insult.
Our experience over the years since 1933 would indicate and should have taught us this thing that is pointed out by so many observers and writers, that, all the way along, the cheapest communist commodity has been talk, as long as the western nations were not prepared to give things away as fast and as freely as the Russians and other communist nations thought we should. The classic example of how quickly these things can be done when the western nations are prepared to give Russia what she wants was the Teheran conference in 1943. At that time Russia, we are told, wanted a second front in Europe, and more lend-lease goods. President Roosevelt agreed to both terms. Russia merely gave a few inconsequential promises and a quick agreement was effected.
Then, any hon. members who have read Mr. Churchill's recent book, "Triumph and Tragedy", will recall that at Yalta in 1945 a very great part of the world was put under the sway of Russia. Mr. Churchill states that he jotted down on a piece of paper a formula for dividing up influence in the Balkan states. He shoved it over quietly to Stalin, who very quickly put some sort of cryptic mark on it, and that is all there was to it. There was no need for long talks under such conditions as those. And Mr. Churchill said that it was all over in no more time than it takes to set it down on paper.

External Affairs
Then six months after Yalta, at the Potsdam conference, the United States agreed to give the Russians just about everything they wanted in eastern Germany, and also agreed to let the Russians haul out of Germany-all parts of it-into Russia, vast quantities of machinery and plants of every description.
Anyone who has taken the trouble to look at the formation of the boundaries between the eastern and western zones of Germany, as I have done, can see how cleverly every single power plant was carved out of the western zone and made to appear in the eastern zone. And when one looks at those things he will understand just how easily the Russians got what they wanted. At Potsdam the Russians really smiled and, we are told, nodded in agreement, said a few words and went home perfectly happy.
Over the past eight years 94 meetings have been held between the western and eastern powers concerning disarmament. Over three million words have been spoken on that subject, but no agreement has been reached, nor does it seem at the present time as though one is in sight.
At the United Nations general assembly, and in the security council, 35 million words have been spoken on widely varying topics- world peace, and the problems the nations face. And in this great world forum the communists have quibbled, they have thumped the tub, and have used every opportunity to proclaim their propaganda. They have denounced the western nations, and they have sometimes walked out. Even when they did stay in they conducted their debate like a bunch of rowdies, resorting almost constantly to debate by insults.
Words, I say, have been communist weapons, the best weapons they have ever used. They have used them not only in a world forum like the United Nations, but they have also used them to take over labour unions and other organizations they wanted to capture. They have used words to take over nations and to win international conferences. Right now there seems to be a period of quiet and peace on what we might call the word front. For some weeks past we have read about the sweetness and joviality and friendliness of the Russian delegates and their friends at the United Nations but we should be warned that behind all this peaceful front there must be the same old communist strategy.
The minister pointed out today how important it was that we take care that we be not divided. Well, we must beware of that, because I am satisfied that the aim of the

communists, in their sweet attitude at the present time, is an effort to divide the free world, with the ultimate hope of course of strengthening their own position so they can dominate the world. As one step toward this effort at division the communists are now bidding for more trade with Europe, the United States and other nations of the world. Well, it seems to me that in over eight years of that sort of thing we should have learned something; I hope we have. For just a few minutes I should like to say something about communism, perhaps in general, and about things we ought to be doing to prevent the communists from achieving their goal of world domination.
When we earnestly seek for a solution to the very great and trying world problems it seems to me that we should adopt a principle to guide us in reaching that decision, out of the experience we have had over the years and realizing as we do how difficult-yes, wellnigh impossible-it is to negotiate with the communists on anything like satisfactory or even terms. We ought to ask ourselves as we approach the problem: will this proposed solution have the effect of strengthening the communist world; or in the alternative, will this proposed solution have the long-range effect of weakening the communist world and consequently of strengthening our own by comparison?
I say we should be guided by the truthful answers to these questions. Certainly I believe that any decision we make should never have the effect of strengthening communism and the communist world, no matter how humanitarian we might wish to be in our outlook and views. If what we are about to do or if what has been proposed will in any way tend to build up communist strength, then I say, Mr. Speaker, we should assiduously avoid that proposal.
We have given too much ground already, in my judgment. Perhaps even in Canada itself it would be well to require of anyone who would dwell in our land that he earn his privileges of citizenship. In the external field I think that rather than welcoming communist dictators and nations with open arms into our fellowship of free nations and giving them every advantage of such fellowship, we should be thinking carefully of modifying the privileges that those countries, especially the U.S.S.R., are enjoying.
I am thinking at the moment of trade. Something was said about it this afternoon by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). He did not say where he stood on the matter. More was said about it by the leader of the C.C.F. party, and he did say where they stood. I am going to say

where I stand. I do not think that the communist nations should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of trade with the western world unless they are prepared to give ample evidence that they value their association with our fellowship and are prepared also to work for the betterment of the world and for its peace and security.
That is a pretty straightforward position,
I would say, and I have reasons for taking that view. There are many people of course who say well, what harm would it do to let the countries of the world sell nonstrategic materials to Russia or to some of the communist nations? I take the view that for the present we should not even be prepared to trade with them in non-strategic materials, because they can use them to increase production of strategic materials and weapons, and that of course would result in building up their strength at the expense of the nations against whom they are constantly working, with the objective of course of destroying us. Why should we send them goods with which they can turn around and cut us down? I do not believe that is sound under any circumstances. There should be no trade even in non-strategic materials between Russia and the fellowship of free nations until, as Mr. Eisenhower said, by deeds and not words they give evidence of a desire to work for peace and for world security, instead of disruption and world domination which seems to be their constant aim.
This of course would look very serious to Britain, because Britain appears to feel that it is necessary for her to trade with China and Russia and perhaps other countries behind the iron curtain. If Great Britain is forced to seek trade behind the iron curtain, as many people seem to think she has been, then nobody is to blame for that situation but the United States, Canada and other parts of the free world. The free world thus far has made trade impossible for Great Britain at a time when all of us should have been doing everything we possibly could to strengthen and to build her up because, Mr. Speaker, Great Britain has been for many years the fount and source of justice, equity, liberty and the rule of law, and to let her be destroyed is nothing less than a world tragedy.
I say again that the free nations of the world by their policies have forced Britain behind the iron curtain, and we have not done what we could to build her up. I was struck with these words in a letter that I received just yesterday from a former member of this house, Mr. Luchkovich, who now lives in the city of Edmonton. I commend
External Affairs
these words to all hon. members. Some of you will remember him when he was here; he was a U.F.A. member. I quote from his letter:
Practising our Canadianism, we must not forget the debt we owe Great Britain. In this struggle we need Great Britain, and Great Britain needs us and our relations with each other must remain intact.
I have no brief for Great Britain by virtue of ties of blood, but I can support her by reason of common sense and national security. Thus I have no desire to twist the lion's tail nor share in the charges of decadency. The British have had the great misfortune of losing the cream and flower of their most able young people in two great world wars. That gap has not as yet been closed. But it will be; and in the meantime they should not have to worry too much so long as they keep on producing Shakespeares, Newtons, Harveys, Watts, Stevensons, Wellingtons and Churchills.
But, being of Ukrainian origin, all I can do is to express my admiration for a people that has maintained its traditions so long, that has stood up so nobly under adversity, that has saved itself by its own efforts, and others by its own example.
The British people have been "running too long with the hounds to be worried by their whelps." They have been the real founders of democracy as it is now understood. Hyde Park is not only a pleasure ground but a safety valve for all the cranks to let off steam. Handsome is as handsome does and names will never hurt the British so long as they do not slough off the white man's burden and discard their role as champion of human and minority rights.
That is the end of the part I wanted to quote. This gentleman of Ukrainian origin rises to the sentiments which should be guiding the whole of the commonwealth today, and we are one of the leading members of the commonwealth.
I said that if Britain has been forced behind the iron curtain to do much of her trading, then nobody can be blamed for that situation but the people of the western world, and we in Canada and the United States must bear our fair share of the blame. What have we done to help to rehabilitate Britain and the commonwealth? What have we done to make Britain's trading easier? What have we done to help that country increase the production of those things which Canada needs and wants from Great Britain?
I am not forgetting that when we were debating the speech from the throne we Social Crediters put forward an idea for trade with Great Britain that I am perfectly satisfied would have been and could now be of tremendous help in bringing that country back to the position which we need her to occupy in this world. I am satisfied that if our proposal at that time that we be prepared to accept some sterling-we did not say "all sterling"-from Britain in the course of our trade to settle some of our balances, that had we been prepared to do so five or six years

External Affairs
ago, I am satisfied that today Britain could be supplying us with many of the things that we need and cannot get there. I am satisfied that if we had started even this year we could have done much in just a few months to help Britain back on her feet; but what was the attitude of hon. members to that proposal? No, sir, they turned it down and said that it would interfere with the determination of the powers that be to retain the dominance and the super-sanctity of the almighty dollar. That was the only reason.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I think if we will adopt realistic trade policies we can take care of Great Britain's needs and therefore not force her to trade behind the iron curtain. I believe that under such circumstances we could come nearer to the kind of unity among the countries of the western world that we need. At the present time Great Britain, because she feels the necessity for trade with China, has recognized China, and she advocates that the other free nations of the world recognize her. That is a point of division among the free nations.
Moreover, Great Britain would like to see China become a member of the United Nations largely because of the advantages which might come to her in the world of trade. When the communist world is made to understand that the free flow of trade between their countries and the free nations of the world is a valuable privilege of fellowship that comes only to those worthy of that fellowship, then I am quite certain they will be led to some worth-while introspection and perhaps into a little repentance. I think the most salutary lesson that any human being or group of human beings can learn, that is when he or they have been acting in an anti-social way, is to find some modification of his or their privileges of citizenship or fellowship, whether it is on a national or world scale.
That brings me to the question of communist China's demand for membership in the United Nations. I do not think we should be in any hurry about granting communist China entry into the United Nations. I do not mean to say that eventually she should not have full fellowship there, but what would be her reasons for wanting to become a member now? That is a question that has to be asked. Would it be because she feels she can contribute something to world peace and security? Is she prepared to fulfil and capable of fulfilling her obligations under the terms of the United Nations charter? Or is she anxious to become a member of the United Nations and is Russia
anxious to have her there because she could be a support and a source of strength to the communist world and its disruptive aims by having a seat in the assembly beside the seat of Russia? In his article entitled "Don't Let Asia Split the West" as reprinted from the World of December, 1953, the minister *of external affairs wrote this pungent paragraph:
To understand the meaning of Asian communism, to place It as we should, against the background of foreign exploitation and feudal oppression, is one thing. But it does not mean that at this time we should welcome into the international community, as a state willing to abide by the principles of the United Nations charter, a regime which has committed aggression in Korea and has yet to show that it is willing to contribute to a peaceful and democratic solution of the Korean or other Asian problems.
I am in thorough agreement with those words, and I sincerely hope that Canada will stand by them. In other words, we do not want to exercise any hatred toward Asians as such. They are human beings just the same as we are, and we must be prepared to treat them in every way as equals. As the minister has so well said in other places, "We should unite against aggressors and not against Asians." That is true. But let us say to China, "When you have demonstrated by deeds and not more millions of words that you are willing and prepared to contribute to a peaceful and democratic solution of the Korean and other Asiatic problems; when you are prepared to take your full responsibilities under the terms of the United Nations charter and abide by those terms, then you will be admitted into full fellowship in the United Nations with all the valuable privileges of that fellowship, at least so far as we are concerned."
Mr. Speaker, I have not much more to say and I hope you will turn a blind eye to the clock for just a minute in order that I may complete a point which I wish to make. I am convinced in my own mind, as a matter of fact, that the United Nations would be a much better organization without Russia. There are those who think otherwise and I honour their views, but that is my belief. Russia has never yet contributed anything but frustration and despair and confusion. What hope have we that she will ever contribute anything more in the future? If, of course, she should give evidence of a real change of heart; if she should begin to demonstrate her desire to live up to her responsibilities under the United Nations charter, then of course she should not be denied full fellowship.

I am firmly convinced, however, that the organization would go along much better without Russia and without her satellites so long as they continue their present attitude and practices. We could make far better headway without her. She now uses the organization to spread her propaganda, to get her spies and subversives into this and every other country for one purpose, to undermine and destroy us. I am sure that if Russia did not have full fellowship in the United Nations there would be a much better chance of unity among those nations who are left and who are willing to undertake and discharge their responsibilities under the charter.
If the communist world were denied the privileges of membership in this fellowship of nations, and if we over the years demonstrate that we can make use of it to further and improve our collective and individual security, our standard of living and all of those worth-while things, then I say perhaps Russia and the others might decide that membership is a real privilege for which they should work and for which they should give a real demonstration of their integrity and their willingness to co-operate on a peaceful basis.
I doubt that any other action of the western world short of all-out war will teach the communist aggressors anything of lasting value. I certainly would be the last one to advocate all-out armed conflict. I know what it would mean. My organization and I are committed to strive for international peace and security. We believe that Canada and all other nations should have been striving over the years with all their might to find out what are the real sources of war, and to remove those just as quickly as possible.
We should have been doing everything in our power to remove industrial rivalry among the nations, to establish an equitable distribution of the goods and services this world can produce, and to have them distributed in all nations that are willing to co-operate. We believe that perhaps the greatest single factor leading to international conflict has been the lack of such equitable distribution of the goods and services that were produced. We are unalterably of the opinion that the establishment of sound international trade policies, such as those we have outlined on many occasions, is the best assurance of international peace and security.
At the same time we recognize only too well that there is over the whole face of the world today a conflict of ideologies that is a constant threat to peace and national security. When we realize that this conflict is going on, then we also must be realistic
External Affairs
in recognizing the necessity of organizations such as NATO and the European defence community and that sort of thing. We recognize also the necessity of organizing our own national economy so as to provide good opportunities for economic security for all of our people, along with freedom, so we can help them to be happy and contented in their lot and save them in the struggle that is going on for men's minds.
We hear much about peace and the opportunities for peace. We hon. members are getting letters almost every day from some peace organization. Because we speak sometimes with vigour, because we advocate allout vigilance, some of us are often understood to be belligerent. I hope there will be an intelligent differentiation between the two, as certainly there is a difference. To be vigilant is not to be belligerent. Vigilance is all we want.
Speaking of peace may I say that to us, except life itself and liberty there is probably nothing that we cherish as much as peace. Perhaps more of us do not find it because we do not understand the nature of peace. Today men and nations alike are running to and fro in search of it, some of them hoping to purchase it at a bargain-and I speak of Russia as one-some fully expecting to pay its entire price but not knowing what that price must be.
Perhaps these people have forgotten, or perhaps they never knew, that peace does not depend upon the accumulation of material things, nor upon the accident of chancing to be in one place or another on this globe, but rather that peace comes from an attitude of mind which leaves the windows of the soul open to all truth, and the will to live in accordance with that truth. This every man should know-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. I do not like having to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I think I should point out that he has spoken for more than 40 minutes. I might mention that, with the consent of the house, he may of course conclude his remarks. I may also say that I think all our proceedings today are done by consent. I would also remind the house that, by consent, this debate is for a limited term.


Solon Earl Low: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I have just one sentence to finish. I want to make absolutely certain that every member of this house realizes that there is a price that must be paid for peace, and that we must be willing to pay that price. If we do not realize that, of course we have no basis upon which to seek for peace.

External Affairs
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say we should know that peace may be found by earnest searchers for it, and certainly not by restless journeys over the world from this country to behind the iron curtain where you can learn methods of subversion. I hope we shall make it impossible in the future for some of our so-called world citizens and fellow travellers to make such easy trips behind the iron curtain to learn the art of peace that they want to buy at an easy price.


Mr. Roch Pinard (Parliamentary Assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, although on past occasions I have had the opportunity of discussing matters concerning international affairs, this is the first chance I have had to do so as parliamentary assistant to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). I am indeed grateful to him for this opportunity which he has given me to express certain views on this important subject.
As he suggested this afternoon, I shall deal briefly with the activities of the United Nations at the last session of the general assembly last fall. As I had occasion to attend only the latter part of that session, I must say that I had to depend upon the assistance and co-operation of the members of the Canadian delegation in order to form an opinion as to what was going on. Afterward I could follow with ease the developments that were taking place.
While Korean developments outside the United Nations itself held the spotlight of public attention, the general assembly concerned itself during its eighth session with other matters reflecting a vast range of problems of concern to the international community. The eighth session was shorter than preceding sessions. In fact it began in mid-September and lasted only until the early part of December. In spite of that fact, the agenda was quite lengthy and in every field -political, economic, social, administrative and legal

there were issues pressing for solution. The delegations applied themselves to the work of the various committees in a businesslike manner under the guidance of the chairmen of the committees, including our own Dr. George Davidson, who acted with great competence as chairman of the social committee. The various delegations carried on the work at a good pace.
Glancing back at the eighth session of the assembly, one cannot be aware of much in the way of really constructive achievement. Nonetheless there is evidence of a generally high level of progress on the varied questions with which the assembly was concerned. This session was something of a transitional one, 
spanning the period between the termination of the Korean conflict and the post-Korea relationships that may develop in its wake. The assembly made some progress on problems of long standing, but did not advance far on issues on which there remained, as usual, a major clash of interest.
The atmosphere of the assembly was influenced, as it generally is, by the current international climate, and particularly by the fact that some of the major problems, such as the Korea problem and the prospect of a meeting of the big four powers on Germany, were being dealt with elsewhere. Nevertheless the United Nations continued to provide a valuable meeting ground for east and west, and it kept in motion in the right direction the machinery of international co-operation.
At the beginning of the session our Secretary of State for External Affairs had to resume his function as head of the Canadian delegation after he turned over to his successor, Madame Pandit of India, the duties of president of the general assembly. I think I express a view which is shared by most members of this house when I say that our country was extremely proud to have as one of its most distinguished sons one who did such a wonderful job as president of that important international body. His sense of duty and the effective way in which he conducted the proceedings gave to the people of Canada another reason to believe that our Secretary of State for External Affairs enjoys the reputation of being not only a great diplomat but a really great Canadian.
(Translation):
Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty were I not to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) who was acting president of the eighth session of the general assembly during the long absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). The Postmaster General discharged these duties with ability while losing nothing of his usual geniality.
I would also like to point out the excellent work done by my colleague from Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton) who also happens to be my member, since I have the honour of living in his constituency. He was an assiduous participant in all discussions, as a delegate, more particularly in the legal committee to which he brought his long experience in the field of law.
(Text):
In the work of the Canadian delegation, Mr. Speaker, we were also assisted by the presence of parliamentary observers from each of the main parties represented in this house;

and I feel sure that this arrangement, which is based upon the practice followed in earlier years, has fully justified itself.
As in previous sessions, several major problems which are not new played a large part in assembly discussions and will, I am afraid, continue in the future to challenge our collective resources of intelligence and good will. These arose from issues of nationalism, colonialism and racialism. We have witnessed in acute form the practical problems which arise in this world organization in seeking to reconcile the principle of the domestic jurisdiction of sovereign states over dependent peoples with the legitimate interest of the United Nations in human rights and peaceful progress towards a wider freedom for all peoples. These are not merely arid, constitutional debates. They relate to issues which, in a dynamic world, arouse strong passions and directly concern the fate of many millions of human beings.
For the most part these problems have been considered in a spirit of moderation. These great issues cannot be determined by a rigid and formal reference to the letter of the charter. I would think that the charter of the United Nations could be compared in some ways with the constitution of a nation. A constitution must have some flexibility, and must never become the master but should always remain the servant of the people. The same thing, I think, should apply to the charter of the United Nations, so that on occasion amendments should be brought forward in order to have a charter that will suit in a better way the general interests of this organization.
It must be recognized that the force of nationalism, to which I was referring, and the urge for independence are among the strongest and most explosive elements in the world today. In seeking to direct these forces toward the path of order and non-violence the United Nations has one of its most important roles to play. Such problems arose in the case of the items dealing with Morocco and Tunisia, to which the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) referred this afternoon, and other problems relating to the development of self-government and charges of racial discrimination were also discussed.
Here delegations faced alternatives not easy to resolve or reconcile. Here were problems on which the Asian and Arab states feel particularly strongly, because to them the rights and wrongs of the case are so clearly defined. Because of this they perhaps found it difficult to understand why, in the voting in the general assembly, the Canadian delegation was not able to be always
External Affairs
fully on their side, and at times had to oppose them. The basic reason for this is, I think, the difference of emphasis which we on the one hand, and the Arab-Asian states, on the other, place on the many factors which enter into the problem. We in the western world and the Arab and Asian states are in principle united on basic aims. It is on the choice of the best means to achieve them that we sometimes differ.
The Canadian people know too well the price to be attached to freedom of government not to be in accord with other countries which are now striving towards the same end. As citizens of a country which has gradually and peacefully transformed its status from that of a simple colony to that of a free nation, it is our duty to look with sympathy upon problems of the same nature which are facing other peoples who are also trying to attain maturity and independence. But we also have our duty to perform according to the terms of the charter of the United Nations. Our intervention in matters of that kind must not be of a kind which would endanger the peaceful relations of people in those areas.
At each session of the United Nations we also look anxiously for concrete actions which will provide a test of the real intentions of the Soviet union and of the sincerity of the desire of Soviet leaders to reduce international tensions. With the best will in the world, it cannot be said that the eighth session has been marked by any basic change in Soviet actions. The house will be well aware of the difficulties in getting the political conference started in Korea. In other fields Soviet spokesmen and their satellites have persisted in their traditional positions as, for example, on the disarmament issue; or have continued to use the assembly as a platform for their usual propaganda lines, as in colonial questions or on the issue of charter revision.
The Soviet delegation insisted in putting on the agenda near the end of the session an item on international tension. But the way to reduce international tension is not to talk about it; it is to tackle, in a spirit of co-operation, the practical difficulties and current problems which face us. There is as yet no concrete evidence that the Soviet union is willing to act in this way.
This was especially true on the question of disarmament. When this matter was debated in plenary meeting last spring the co-operative attitude adopted by Mr. Vishinsky caused many of us to think that possibly the Soviet union had begun to think


George Alexander Drew: Today, for the first time during the present session, Mr. Speaker, as well as for the first time in the year 1954, a day has been set aside for the discussion of our survival. We are not talking about external affairs or the interests of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). We are talking about the hope of civilization for survival. I trust that the interest in survival is greater than might at some moments appear to be the case.
I have a sense of a feeling of unreality concerning the things that have been said, and the way in which the very ominous picture before us today has been analysed. In some ways I cannot help but feel that this is where some of us came in. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) brings back to my mind memories that are associated with the nature of the discussion today. I mention him because I have known him longer than any other member in this house except the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson). I played football with the member for Vancouver South many years ago. I played football with the member for Simcoe North still earlier.


An hon. Member:: You were a wonderful
kicker even then.


George Alexander Drew: I remember that at that time I
was doing the kicking and helping on the half line of the team at the University of Toronto. I was centre half. The right half was the son of a very well known Liberal, who was presumed to be Liberal himself. The left half was rather regarded as a left, but we were all good friends. I presume I was wrong in the assessment that was placed on his views at that time, but as I have said we were all good friends. It does not seem so long ago, unfortunately, and then it was not very long after that until we found ourselves in the same artillery brigade overseas.
I only mention that now because it brings back to my memory many of the pleasures of life in the days before the first world war; and it was a very pleasant life. It also brings back to my memory a different kind of war, a stern war, a war which we were then led to believe was a war to end war. It was, in fact, Armageddon.
It did not turn out that way. When the war was over, following the armistice signed on November 11, 1918-which	significantly
enough we still remember rather than the date named as the day of peace-we had dreams of a new and sensible world, where reason was going to prevail. Young men of that time, like the hon. member for Vancouver South, myself and others, many of them now

External Affairs
in this house, having regard to the lessons of the days before the war, thought that the league of nations which was then created under a charter which was part of the treaty of Versailles had in fact set up a brave new world where the joint common sense of men and women was going to prevent a repetition of that horror which most of us had seen.
That horror was seen and shared by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) just as it was by others who are here today. The dream was not entirely visionary but the dream broke down. The dream became nothing but a dream and it became nothing but a dream because those who had created this bright vision had not been able to sufficiently impress upon those who followed them the simple and inescapable fact that words and platitudes are never a substitute for that type of joint action which would prevent aggression just in the same way that you prevent, within some reasonable measure, the complete breakdown of society within the many organized communities of the world.
Then came the last world war, a war that everyone agreed in 1939 and 1940 had actually been brought closer and closer to certainty by the appeasement which encouraged the aggressor to move one step farther every time the last step succeeded beyond his highest hopes. Look back at the newspapers of 1939 and 1940, and see how everyone who was called upon to speak at every important public forum was saying that never again would the word "appeasement" be written across the face of the world in letters of blood. That was the lesson that we said we had learned.
With that impression in the minds of men and women, and with all the limitless horrors of the last world war still fresh in their minds, representatives of most of the nations of the world gathered at San Francisco in the spring of 1945 and signed the charter of the United Nations, with the hope that the failure of the league of nations would warn them of the danger of forgetting some of the lessons of days gone by.
Who can forget the warnings of that great statesman, Jan Christiaan Smuts, the man who actually first conceived the form of the league of nations. His was the warning that if this was to become a reality, then everyone should remember that the way to peace was not to be found along the road of appeasement. And there were others there with similar memories. I think the time has come for every one of us to urge that in the name of decency and civilization we should revive

those memories, and remember that when we emphasized the dangers of appeasement it was simply with the thought of seeking to emphasize the danger of war itself.
Today we have heard external affairs discussed. I would be less than frank if I said tonight that I thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs had told us anything about external affairs, other than to repeat things that we already knew, except as to the decision of the government in regard to the invitation of India for a reconvening of the United Nations. I may have missed something, but I cannot recall a single thing he told us that was not already a matter of common knowledge. And this is the first debate we have had on external affairs. If I am wrong in what I have said I would be glad to be corrected.
As the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said today when speaking on behalf of this party, we want as much agreement as there possibly can be in regard to external affairs. To whatever extent that is possible, we want a single policy which will represent the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, a policy of that kind can come only when external affairs are discussed in an atmosphere of reality, and when the spirit and faith and belief of the members are challenged by the feeling that we are being taken into the confidence of the government, publicly, so far as possible, and privately to whatever extent that can be justified.
Passing from the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I want to speak about certain statements that were made this afternoon by the leader of the C.C.F. party. He spoke about the immense change that has taken place in Russia within these past few months. They have; tremendous changes have taken place. Stalin died less than a year ago. At that time there was great speculation whether his successor would be Beria or Malenkov. Malenkov was the successor. The leader of the opposition and his associates were disposed of; they have a somewhat different system there.
This was no removal of some disturbing element in the country. He was disturbing only to the extent that, conceivably, he might have challenged Malenkov's position. Of course, as has been pointed out already, his was the usual fate of those who have occupied the same post. I cannot recall a single head of the secret police in Russia since the revolution who has not been disposed of in the same way. I do not know why it is still possible to fill that office.
But surely anybody must be almost
unbelievably naive who thinks that Malenkov was suddenly imbued with some high

moral purpose which led him to dispose of this fiend who had murdered many people in Russia over the years. Of course he had; but that is the business of any man in that job in Russia, and it will be the business of the man who is in that job in Russia now. And it was the business of the men who did that job, when they removed Beria and his associates, as they have removed many others. Yes, there have been changes. A new ruler exercises that unlimited power. Oh, yes, there are different appearances. The gestures of friendship have been made. Well, surely our memories are not so short that we do not remember the same gestures of friendship in the years just before the last world war.
It happens that I was in Moscow at the time they were carrying out a similar political change some years ago, in fact, at the time they were disposing of Tukachevski and Yakir and a number of other Russian generals in 1937. History is simply repeating itself. At that time visitors to Russia were welcomed more than they have been since the last war. The gestures of friendship on the surface were there. It was possible to find many pleasant things; art, music-all were to be found in Moscow or Leningrad in the buildings that had been erected long before the revolution. There were pleasant things there, pleasant and deceptive things.
No, the picture has not greatly changed. But then I was struck by the words of the leader of the C.C.F. when he said we may be entering a period of peaceful negotiation. Let us not forget the Russian willingness to negotiate; let us not forget the readiness of the Russians to negotiate with nazi Germany in 1939. Let us not forget that if the Russian government had not signed an agreement with nazi Germany on August 26, 1939, while they were actually negotiating with the British and the French at the same time in Moscow, it is still uncertain whether Hitler would have dared to move at that time. They were still in advance of their schedule. Do not let anybody forget the pictures they can see in the press if they are not still clear in their minds, of Mr. Molotov, who is now in Berlin, side by side with von Ribbentrop signing that agreement in the Kremlin when they pledged themselves in a friendship that was to be everlasting.
Yes, they negotiate; they will sign anything, and the documents that have been disclosed since the war make it perfectly clear that when they signed that agreement on August 26, 1939, they had no more sincerity of purpose than had the Germans. Both of them were planning for what was going to take place at the next stage.
External Affairs
It was not many days after that when Germany struck in that unprovoked attack on Poland which brought the free nations into the last war. It was not because any inch of the soil of Britain, of France, of any part of the British commonwealth or of the United States was challenged at that time. It was because a great principle was challenged, and that was the right of nations to live their own lives and not be subject to unprovoked aggression such as nazi Germany committed in the attack. And then what happened? Did Russia repudiate the agreement and become indignant at this breach of the understanding? No; they went in for their share. Greatly to the distaste of the Germans they moved in and occupied the other half of Poland. When thieves fall out trouble really begins. One of the thieves has been dealt with; the other is now prepared to negotiate once again.
I am repeating only in capsule form the tragic history of those early days of the last war that we should not forget. When we talk about negotiation let us remember that those are the same people-that is, those of them who have survived-and their manner of doing business has not changed in any way.
I was disturbed, and greatly disturbed, by the remarks made by the leader of the C.C.F. party in regard to the possible establishment of Soviet bases in certain parts of the world. I was disturbed because I recognize without any reservation his complete sincerity in his approach to this problem. I was disturbed because I recognized his sincerity and the extent to which many people appear to forget some of the events of even the most recent years. He said:	"I wonder what we would
think if the Soviet union sought to establish bases in Cuba or in Mexico?" He asked us to think of how this would be regarded in the United States as an evident sign of aggression. He may not have intended it, but I almost heard the speech I heard Bevan make in the House of Commons in Britain when he pictured two aggressors between whom there was not very much of a choice. I hope this is not the interpretation to be placed upon those remarks; but let us take what he said: "What would we think if we found the Soviet seeking to establish bases in Mexico or in Cuba or in those other places?"
Let us remember, Mr. Speaker, that the Soviets have sought to establish bases in other places throughout the world where they could get bases, and they have been very successful. Who brought the Soviet troops into East Germany? Who brought the Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia? Who brought the Soviet troops into all of eastern

External Affairs
Europe? Then let us go back in our memory to Spain, in the days before the last war. Did I hear someone say "Churchill"? Anyone who said "Churchill" is unworthy to sit in this house, if he was suggesting that Churchill was responsible for their going in there.


Mr. Zaplitny:: I was the one who said "Churchill" and my comment was that Churchill was the one who negotiated with the Russians.


George Alexander Drew: I was speaking of Spain, and the hon. member knew I was speaking of Spain. I have heard that same statement before. Now, let us be quite clear that no one saw more clearly than Churchill did what was happening in Spain. Read his speeches of that time, and let no one here suggest that Churchill did not see before the last war as clearly as any human being in the world what was happening in that area, as in other parts where the bitter signs of war were still not apparent to some who sought peace just as much as he did.
No, let us not forget the friendship of Franco for those who were opposed to the things for which we stand. But let us not forget that what brought Franco to power in Spain was the communist government under Caballero. Do not let anybody suggest that it was not a communist government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Do not let anybody suggest that it was not a communist government. I saw in Moscow tribute being paid to representatives of the people who had put Caballero there, and who were being honoured by the communists in Moscow at that time.


Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo):: Does the hon.
member deny that it was the fascist and the nazi brigades that finally put Franco in power?


George Alexander Drew: I know my history too well not to know perfectly well who brought Franco to power. What brought Franco to power was exactly the same thing that brought Hitler to power in Germany and Mussolini to power in Italy. It was the communists; and the people who were determined to drive out communism went to another dangerous extreme. In every case these vile dictatorships have been the spawn of communism itself. Do not let anyone to my left or elsewhere distort history today. It was the vile abuses of the communist-supported and communist government of Caballero that were condemned by Churchill and by those who knew what was taking place. But do you suppose for one minute that if Caballero had stayed there, Russia would not have continued to supply Caballero with the guns,

the tanks and the weapons that they had been supplying him with? Certainly weapons were supplied on the other side, and unhappily the first round of the last world war was in some measure fought in Spain. Every one of us knows that the fascists of Italy and the nazis of Germany took one side, with the communists on the other. But do not let anyone suggest that Russia has not been willing to establish bases wherever she could.
Do not think for one moment that if Russia had succeeded in gaining control of Italy through their regime there under Togliatti they would not have supplied Italy with arms, weapons and the supplies of war today. Do not believe for one moment that if they had succeeded in their dream, in which thank God they failed, of imposing a communist government on France under Thorez they would not have supplied them with guns and tanks and weapons, and that we would have been facing a very much more dreadful picture than we do today.
No, let us not get this picture distorted in any way. The suggestion that the Russians have reason to be alarmed about the establishment of bases by the United States in different parts of the world denies one very simple fact. Russia has been the great aggressor since the last war, and has brought more human beings under that vile dictatorship than were ever brought under slavery in the same period of time in the long history of the world. In that same time not one act of aggression of any kind could be charged to the government of the United States which, thank God, is our ally in this great cause. That is something to remember.
Do not suggest that those two things are on the same basis. I was disturbed today when I heard the suggestion that the NATO forces were capable of stemming aggression. We know they are not. We know that they are not in position to stem the forces of Russia assembled in Europe today. We do know that with the immense bombing power of the United States and Britain those forces can be effective to prevent aggression; but the compelling deterrent, and never let us forget it, at this time is the immense bombing power of the United States and Britain. I repeat, "and Britain". Let us pass from that.
I have dealt with these things because it would be very unfortunate if in seeking peace we forgot any of the recent lessons of history, or were beguiled into any belief that the peaceful front presented under the new leader in the Kremlin offers any assurance of good intentions until some evidence of good

intention, which has not yet been given, is offered as evidence to the world of any substantial change.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard today of the horrors of another war. I do not think anyone needs to be reminded of that. Anyone who follows the radio and reads the press knows perfectly well the unbelievable extension of the deadly power of nuclear weapons. But let us always recall that the increase in the deadliness of weapons does not change a single principle which we accepted under the charter of the United Nations at San Francisco or a single lesson we were supposed to have learned in the years between the two world wars and the ghastly tragedy that followed.
In the last few days we may well have reached a dramatic turning point in history. No one can yet say with finality what is going to emerge from the conference in Berlin. Let us see quite clearly what did emerge from the proposal made on behalf of Russia by Mr. Molotov at the beginning of that conference. He proposed that China be seated immediately as one of the big five. He went further, however, and indicated quite clearly that if this proposal were accepted, then the western powers could count on the good offices of Russia to bring about peace in Korea and Indo-China.
Mr. Speaker, whatever was intended by that statement, one thing emerged in unmistakable form. How can Russia again deny their full authority over China? How can Russia again deny that they are in a position to pull the strings? That was their bait. That was their promise. They said if we accepted communist China as one of the big five they would do what we have all said Russia1 could do.
That did something more. It centred international diplomacy on the willingness or otherwise of the free nations to recognize communist China, to give such further recognition and to be prepared to accept her in the United Nations. It meant nothing else. They are to be one of the big five. That means they are to be one of the five permanent members of the United Nations security council. It had no other meaning and was not intended to have any other meaning.
It is granted that certain other things have happened since then; but I think most of us will be greatly surprised if this conference ends with that position changed. I think most of us will be surprised if this conference does not end with the Russian demand still there, that the price of negotiation, the
External Affairs
price of peace which they can enforce upon their puppets, is the recognition of communist China and the entry of communist China into the United Nations. They were called to Berlin to talk about the unification of Germany and Austria, but the focal point of international diplomacy has been carried across two oceans and this continent to China.
Mr. Speaker, all the members of this house may not have agreed from time to time with the things that have been said by Mr. Dulles. However, it may be a good thing at this time that issues are presented not in the old terms of veiled diplomacy but in direct and understandable words that ordinary human beings throughout the world can really understand. Mr. Dulles used words of that kind the day before yesterday. This is what he said:
"But who is this Chou En-lai?" Dulles asked. "He is the leader of a regime which attained de facto power through bloody war, which liquidated millions of Chinese as the only means of maintaining power and which devotes so much of its resources to military aims that its people starve by the millions. Such is the man who, Mr. Molotov says, should sit with us. Mr. Molotov has portrayed an illusion. Our moral sense forbids us to accept him."
I hope that in this house we will say that our moral sense forbids us to accept Chou En-lai, Mao Tse-tung or any of the communist hierarchy who are murdering their countrymen in the name of communism in China today. As to the Asian communists, we hear them spoken of as though this were a denatured form of communism. Perhaps it would be well for us not to forget that a substantial part of Russia is in Asia. That fact, of course, gave them the opportunity to train, equip, finance and feed their fifth column under Mao which they organized on the borders of Russia until it was ready to invade China. Do not let anyone pretend that this was an agrarian uprising or an expression of new social consciousness of the people of China. Do not let anybody suggest that this was a Chinese revolt. It was an invasion by a Chinese communist fifth column led by Mao and under the direction of Moscow at all times, as it still is today. If we had been in any doubt about that fact, Mr. Molotov has made it plain by saying that if that puppet government is recognized and accepted in the United Nations, he will use his power to bring peace in Asia.
No, this is not some new expression of Chinese social consciousness. Neither I nor, I hope, anyone else here would suggest that conditions in China were admirable under the government which preceded the present government there, but one of the things

External Affairs
which seems at times to be difficult to comprehend is the way in which Chiang Kai-shek suddenly became the human incarnation of evil the moment that Russian military power happened to be able to move Mao in to form a new government in Peking.
No, Chiang Kai-shek was not giving China democratic government, nor had it ever had democratic government. But let us be quite sure that China will never have democratic government under the present government there. Let us not shed any crocodile tears for the man who has succeeded Chiang Kai-shek, even if one is able suddenly to forget that not so long ago we did find it possible to express some admiration for Chiang Kai-shek because of the fortitude which was shown for many years in stemming Japanese aggression while the rest of the world was twiddling its thumbs and letting aggression take its course. Have we forgotten the report on Japanese aggression prepared by a commission of which a great Canadian jurist formed a part? Have we forgotten what we were told at that time about the possibility of stemming Japanese aggression? I hope not. But we seem to have forgotten that at that time, whatever his methods of government may have been, Chiang Kai-shek was able to lead the Chinese people in resistance to that aggression for a long time.
It was because of his long struggle against a common enemy at that time that China became one of the big five, not because it happened to occupy a particular part of the map of Asia or because of any particular tradition or background. China, under Chiang Kai-shek, became one of the big five because they had fought aggression longer than had any other nation at that time. That is something to be remembered when, too lightly, any suggestion may be made that Mao should step into Chiang's position and assume the same dignity and authority that was accorded to China at that time because of what they had done to fight aggression.
We have many Chinese in Canada, Mr. Speaker, and I have yet to meet a Chinaman in Canada who supports the present communist government in that country-not one, and I have met many of them. I do not think those who live in Vancouver will find many Chinese in Chinatown who will express any support, veiled or otherwise, of the communist government in Peking. I think that is true right across this country. It has certainly been true any place where I have met the many Chinese I have met in these past few years since the communist fifth column under Mao invaded China. No, the Chinese in this country dream of that day

when this ghastly slavery will be ended and when, halting though the steps may be, once again the forward march of the Chinese people toward something of our kind of democracy may begin.
That brings us to the age-old question which applies not only in China but elsewhere. Am I my brother's keeper? I must confess some surprise that there are those who seem to be ready to accept the existence of communist governments imposed by force or threat of force as the status quo, but who are satisfied simply to bask in the sunshine of our own freedom and offer no hope of sunshine or light to those people now living in the darkness of communist slavery. I hope no one will interpret what I have said as suggesting that we can or should contemplate, or would under any conceivable circumstances think of contemplating, a military movement against the governments of any of these countries. No sensible person would even contemplate that possibility. But the least we can do is to stand firm in our own convictions and, standing firm in our own convictions, insist that Russia, which signed the charter of the United Nations in the spring of 1945, extend to those nations outside of Russia which are now enslaved and are servants of the Kremlin an opportunity to choose by a free vote their own form of government.
Is that a vague and unreasonable ideal? It is only a vague and unreasonable ideal if we did an utterly unreasonable thing in 1939 when we regarded the invasion of Poland as a challenge to the fundamental principle that every nation has a right to choose its own form of government, whether it be communist or otherwise, as long as it is their own choice. Are we going to forget the millions of people of Poland who did, for a while, have hope? Are we going to forget the millions of people of the Ukraine who, for a while, also had hope and were free?
May I interject at this point that I hope no one will suggest that the Ukraine is part of Russia. If it is, the representative of the Ukraine has no right to be sitting as a representative of an independent nation at the United Nations in New York now.


Solon Earl Low: He has no right anyway.


George Alexander Drew: In any event, Russia itself is one country that cannot deny that the Ukraine is an independent country, because they insisted that the Ukraine be recognized as an independent country and that their representative be seated there in that capacity. No; in this case we can claim Russian support for the proposition that the Ukraine is an independent country, and I

hope the time will come when that support may be extremely valuable to the people of the Ukraine and all who love freedom.
Have we forgotten the people of Czechoslovakia who, before the last war, had one of the finest democracies to be found anywhere in the world, a peaceful, peace-loving, vigorous, dynamic democracy, betrayed by communists who unhappily were brought into the government of that country in the mistaken idea that you can deal with communists? Have we forgotten the people of Hungary? Remember, Hungary is no stranger to democracy. The golden bull which declared the freedom of the people of Hungary was signed a few years before Magna Carta. That lovely parliament building on the bank of the Danube was one of the great homes of democracy in the world.
Have we forgotten the people of Bulgaria? No, I am not going to suggest that they understood the processes of democracy, but they had their form of government which was their own, and they are now under Russian control. Have we forgotten the people of Roumania, an enlightened country with a great culture and great traditions? Have we forgotten Lithuania on the Baltic, Latvia and Estonia where, before this last war, people were living in decency, comfort and democracy which was a beautiful and shining contrast to the life in Russia to the south of them? Have we forgotten the people in other parts of the world, including China, who have been brought under this slavery? I hope not.
At the moment all we can hope to do is to stand firm in our own convictions. But there is one way that we can test the good faith of Russia which does not depend upon negotiations, and it seems to me such a simple test. Let us simply place before them the charter of the United Nations, and remind them of their signature to that charter. Then we could recall to them certain provisions of that charter, and recall that in the preamble to the charter itself there was the assertion, supported by Russia as one of the big five, that every nation is equal in its right to determine its own course. Russia has brought hundreds of millions of people under as vile a form of slavery as the world has ever seen in these years since the last world war. Can anyone suggest that, if Russia were seeking entry to the United Nations today, any person who had been even moderately informed on modern history could support Russia's entry without repudiating every sanction of the United Nations itself?
Now, having said that, I recognize that Russia is a member. There are provisions
External Affairs
for expulsion. I recognize that it would be folly, that it would be meaningless, to discuss the expulsion of Russia. She is one of the big five with veto power in the security council, so we would not get very far with that. But, Mr. Speaker, China with its puppet government is an aggressor, so declared by the United Nations in Korea, and still an active aggressor in Indo-China today. I fail to see how anyone who retains any mental integrity in their approach to the undertakings of the United Nations can suggest that, under present conditions, China could even be considered for membership in the United Nations.
Let us remember, of course, the distinction between recognition and entry into the United Nations. There seems to be confusion about that. Recognition simply means formal recognition of a government as the de facto government of the state with which we are prepared to do business. Whether or not we are prepared to do business with communist China is something still to be considered, but there is a vast difference between recognition and the entry of the government of communist China into the United Nations. What a travesty it would be if we even discussed it while countries like Portugal, Italy, Japan, West Germany, Austria, Finland, Switzerland and Spain, which we have recognized and to which we send diplomatic representatives, are not members of that organization. What a travesty it would be if we found the dictatorship of Salazar so offensive that we could not admit Portugal, our friend for so long in peace and war, and at the same time we would contemplate the entry of the government of communist China, whose hands are dripping with the blood of the people they have murdered in their rise to power.
No, Mr. Speaker, there could be too high a price to pay. In saying that, I am not suggesting for one moment that we should contemplate the possibility of the kind of terror that would be visited on the world in a modern atomic war. Let me repeat that if we meant what we said back in 1939-40, then we believed at that time-and we might have reason to believe today-that appeasement leads to war, and that the way to preserve peace is to stand firm in a common cause, not to temporize with those who have betrayed every decent undertaking to which they subscribed at a time when we were associated with them in an effort to prevent aggression during the last world war.
No, Mr. Speaker; let us have more reality in discussing this subject. Let us ask that Russia give us evidence of her good faith

External Affairs
before we proceed with further negotiations. I repeat that evidence of good faith can easily be offered, simply by agreeing to permit a free vote in one of those countries I have mentioned as a first step toward honouring their signature to the charter of the United Nations. Let them pick Poland, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Roumania, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, China or any other country which they have occupied, including Tibet; let them display a single bit of evidence of good faith in that way. Otherwise we are simply following the age-old course to ruin.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, one of the most dramatic pictures in the Scriptures is that of the devil conveying the Saviour to a high place and offering him all the realms of the world in return for a bond under which the position of the devil would be recognized. Throughout history not only the Christians but all those who believe in the same principle have followed that example of salvation by repudiating any bargain of that kind. The road to salvation is found along other ways, not along the road to appeasement or bargains of that nature. We want peace by every device within human power. Let us prevent this supreme catastrophe but, Mr. Speaker, let our voices be raised in a way that will leave no doubt that in Canada we want no bargain with the devil.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the agreement which had been reached, and according to which we have proceeded today, since it is now ten o'clock the house adjourns automatically.


Major James William Coldwell: Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for us to sit another 15 minutes to permit the minister to reply to some of the criticisms?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Leonard T. Stick: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear that there is objection to it.


Major James William Coldwell: Where?


Mr. Speaker:: Some hon. members are objecting to sitting after ten o'clock. I shall ask the question again. Is the house giving its consent so the Secretary of State for External Affairs may have a few minutes in which to reply?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leonard T. Stick: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear "No" again. Therefore, as it is ten o'clock-


Mr. Knowles:: Who said "No"?


Leonard T. Stick: I did. I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should not give an explanation for his negative attitude. He has said "No"; therefore unanimous consent is not given.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Speaker:: Will the minister announce the business for Tuesday?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Monday.


Mr. Harris:: On Monday we will consider, in turn, amendments to the Senate and House of Commons Act, amendments to the Salaries Act, amendments to the Post Office Act, and then the Criminal Code.


Mr. Green:: In that order?


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 1, 1954