1954-03-31

Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: I have a short announcement to make regarding Woodside, the boyhood home of the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.
The Woodside property includes the old residence and about eleven acres of wooded land in Kitchener, Ontario. Plans to restore the site were made by a group of interested citizens in 1942. It was not until 1950, however, that it was possible to bring these plans to fruition. In that year the Mackenzie King Woodside trust was established as a nonprofit, non-political corporation with the purpose of restoring Woodside. Contributions were received by the trust from Canadians in many walks of life, and the trust has since carried out the physical restoration of the site at a cost of some $90,000.
Shortly after the work was started the directors of the trust approached the federal government with the suggestion that when restoration was completed Woodside be made a national historic park. This proposal was referred to the historic sites and monuments board of Canada. The board, after investigation, declared Woodside to be a site of national historic importance and recommended that it be taken over and maintained as a national historic park. The recommendation of the board was made in May, 1952. The restoration having been completed, it has now been decided to accept the offer of the trust and to take over the site as a national historic park as of April 1, 1954.



RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to table the report of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning alleged instances of resale price maintenance in the sale of china and earthenware.



EXCHANGE OF MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement to the house in regard to negotiations with Japan for the exchange of most-favoured-nation trade treatment. As hon. members are aware, these discussions have sought a treaty which would be mutually beneficial to both countries. An agreement on commerce between Japan and Canada was signed this morning by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and myself and by the ambassador of Japan to Canada.
The Canadian government welcomes the signing today of the trade agreement with Japan which, when it is ratified and comes into force, should contribute to the prosperity and good trading relations of both countries. Japan is a great trading nation and last year was Canada's third best customer. The importance of the agreement, however, goes beyond commercial considerations, for the agreement should also contribute to stable and friendly relations between the two countries and to the peace and security and progress of the Pacific area. If the house so wishes, I shall table the agreement now and outline its principal provisions.
Under the terms of this agreement Canada and Japan will exchange unconditional mostfavoured-nation trade treatment. The agreement also provides that neither country will impose or maintain restrictions or prohibitions affecting its trade with the other country unless similar measures are applied equally to all third countries. Similarly, in the allocation of foreign exchange and in the administration of foreign exchange restrictions affecting trade, each country will accord unconditional most-favoured-nation treatment.
In a supplementary exchange of notes which is appended to the agreement Canada reserves the right to establish special values for duty on any imports entering Canada in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threaten serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products. In the event of such special values being applied, and in
[Stage Direction]
Trade Agreement with Japan determining the level at which such values should be applied, Canada will take into account the prices of like or directly competitive products imported from other countries.
Under the agreement either country may temporarily impose discriminatory import and exchange restrictions, if such restrictions are required on balance of payments grounds. However, such restrictions must not discriminate between Canada and other dollar countries or other countries with convertible currencies. The government of Japan has also undertaken, subject to certain agreed exceptions, to accord Canada unconditional nondiscriminatory treament in relation to any other country with respect to import and exchange controls on the following nine commodities: wheat, barley, woodpulp, flaxseed, primary copper, lead in pigs, zinc spelter, synthetic resins and milk powder.
The agreement also provides for non-discrimination in state trading practices. Both countries undertake to conform to internationally accepted fair trade practices, particularly in matters pertaining to trade marks, marks of origin and rights under patents. They also undertake to co-operate in the prevention of any practices which might prejudicially affect their mutual trade and to accord sympathetic consideration to any representations that the other country may make.
The two countries have agreed that the provisions of this agreement continue to be applicable in the event that the general agreement on tariffs and trade is applied between Canada and Japan.
As I have indicated, this agreement will enter into force on its ratification by both countries. A resolution for approval of ratification will be introduced in the house as soon as possible.
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of this treaty may I ask the minister when copies of the agreement will be made available to members? Is it a document of such length that it could be printed as an appendix to today's proceedings or is it one that will be printed in the ordinary treaty series? If so, could we have some assurance that the printing will be expedited so there will be printed copies available as soon as possible?


Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):: I shall inquire as to whether it can be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings. If not, I will see that printed copies are available as soon as possible.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Can the minister give the house any indication as to when it is proposed to submit the treaty to the house for ratification, in the light of its importance? I take it from what the minister has said that the treaty will not come into effect until ratified by parliament. Can the minister then indicate when it will be submitted to the house?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Under the British system the agreement has been ratified by signature on behalf of the government of Canada. However, approval of the house will be sought on the action that the government has taken. The ratification referred to is ratification by the Diet in Japan.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I take it from the minister's announcement that Japan agrees to buy minimum quantities of Canadian grain. If so, what are those quantities?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any reference to minimum quantities of grain is, Mr. Speaker, apart from the treaty itself.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will there be an exchange of notes or other steps taken in regard to minimum purchases of grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have already said we have assurances that are satisfactory to the Canadian government as to the future quantities of grain to be purchased by Japan.


Donald Methuen Fleming: In view of what the minister has said as to the treaty having come into effect now, I go back to the question I asked and which he has not yet answered as to how soon it is intended to submit the treaty to the house, along with the proposed resolution to which reference was made?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I hope that the resolution can be put on Votes and Proceedings today, and as soon as the program of the house will permit I presume there will be a discussion here. That is for the house leader to determine.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, March 30, 1954
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Thibaudeau Rinfret, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Wednesday, the 31st March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL ACT


Clarence Decatur Howe: for leave to introduce Bill No. 393, to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act.


Mr. Green:: Will the minister explain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: This bill, Mr. Speaker, is primarily for the purpose of consolidating all the government's activities in the field of atomic energy into one organization. In that way our organization will parallel the atomic energy commission of the United States and the corporation that is responsible for atomic energy matters in the United Kingdom. There is to be some change in the relationship between the atomic energy control board and the corporations that carry out the actual operations of the board which I believe will be more easily explained when the bill is under discussion.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS


Mr. Hahn:: 1.	Did the King Edward dredge do any work for the government on the Fraser river during 1953?
2.	If so, is this dredge owned by the government?
3.	Were supplies purchased in connection with its operations during 1953?
4.	If so, (a) what type of supplies: (b) from whom were they purchased; (c) at what price?
5.	Were tenders called for such supplies?
6.	If this dredge is privately owned, what are the names of the owners?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a)	(b)	(c)
From whom
Type of supplies purchased	Price
Fuel oil	 Standard Oil Co. $28,155.63
Diesel oil	....	See answer to No.	5	246.27Gasoline	
"	"	"	"	"	17.92Rope	
"	"	"	"	"	2,023.32Grease	
"	"	"	"	"	255.44Lubricating oil "	"	
1,230.48Galley coal	..	"	"	"	"	"	1,411.00Galley sundries "	"	" " "	722.96
5. Tenders were called for the supply of fuel oil only; other items were obtained from sources adjacent to the position of the dredge when they were required.
6.	Answered by No. 2.
Questions



MARGARINE AND BUTTER


Mr. Poulin:: 1.	Is the nutrition division of the Department of National Health and Welfare in a position to give a scientific opinion establishing a comparison between the food value of margarine and butter?
2.	If so, what in their opinion is the comparative food value of these products?


Mr. Robertson:: 1.	Yes, on the analyses of any given specific samples.
2.	Both butter and margarine are variable products, partly due to variations in the natural products used, and partly due to the process of manufacture.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE PAYMENTS

Mr. Maclnnis:: 1.	How many persons were in receipt of unemployment insurance for the following months:	(a)December, 1952; (b) December, 1953; (c) January, 1953;	(d) January, 1954;	(e) February, 1953; (f)
February, 1954?
2.	What amount of unemployment insurance benefits was paid out each month for the same periods?


Mr. Gregg:: Estimated number of beneficiaries at the end of each of the following months (1) and amount of gross benefits paid in each of the following months (2):
December,
December,
January,
January,
February,
February,
(1) (2)
1952	. . 164,159 .. $10,926,557.00
1953	.. 218,323 . .	16,882,107.001953	. . 262,429 . .	18,434,646.001954	.. 390,652 ..	25,149,945.001953	.. 298,328 . .	20,596,120.001954	- Figures not yet available.
It will be noted that the number of persons receiving unemployment insurance benefits
at the end of January 1954 was higher than
the estimated number of people "without
jobs and seeking work" from the dominion
bureau of statistics' labour force survey for a number of reasons.
This latter estimate, which is based on a sample survey of the population, includes only people who did not work at all during the survey week and who were reported during the household interviews as seeking work.
The number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits, on the other hand, includes most of these people and besides many others who were on lay-offs, due to bad weather, shortage of materials, plant breakdowns, etc., with instructions to return to work, who were working on a short-time basis or who had lost or found a job during the week.

Questions



JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE-DISPOSAL OF SURPLUSES

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	What decision, if any, did the joint economic committee of Canada and the United States, at its meeting in Washington, arrive at in regard to disposal of surpluses of (a) wheat; (b) other agricultural products, in each of the said countries at cut rate prices or on give-away terms to needy countries or peoples?
2.

Flour * in wheat Wheat equiv.
(bushels)
1946- 47	
-	6,563,6371947-	48	
11,904	1,828,5981948-	49	
3,719,246	2,230,0741949-	50	
617,775	71,7031950-	51	
12,387,556	4,047,9931951-	52	
10,961,011	2,572,5111952-	53	
13,495,035	75,393
* Customs Returns
2.	How much wheat did Canada sell to (a) Italy; (b) India, in each of the years 1946 to 1953 inclusive?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	The communique tabled in this house on Friday, March 19, as recorded on pages 3146 of Hansard described in detail the discussions which took place in Washington on the 16th of March.

Flour * in wheat
Total	Wheat	equiv. (bushels)	Total6,563,637	2,008,905	1,730,471	3,739,3761,840,502	-	3,508,889	3,508,8895,949,320	11,315,099	2,520	11,317,619689,478	-	239	23916,435,549	11,403,285	-	11,403,28513,533,522	18,141,164	90	18,141,25413,570,428	14,055,765	243	14,056,008



BASIS OF PAPER MONEY VALUE

Mr. Leboe:: On what value is our paper money presently based?


Mr. Benidickson:: Bank of Canada notes are legal tender in fulfilment of any contracts made in terms of Canadian money. The Bank of Canada Act provides that these notes shall be redeemable in gold, in the form of bars. It also provides that the bank shall maintain a gold reserve equal to at least 25 per cent of its note and deposit liabilities and may in addition keep a reserve in certain kinds of foreign exchange. At present, the operation of these provisions is suspended, and Canada's official reserves of gold and foreign exchange are centralized in the exchange fund.
The total of Canada's official holdings of gold and United States dollars is published monthly, and at the end of February comprised $1,007-8 million of gold, and $845-7 million of United States dollars which are convertible into gold. Both the foregoing amounts are expressed in terms of United States dollars. At the end of February the Bank of Canada's note and deposit liabilities amounted to 1,506 and 837 million Canadian dollars respectively.



CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION-OUTSIDE EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS

Mr. Dinsdale:: 1. Are any members of the Canadian pension commission engaged in occupations outside their duties as members of the commission?

2.	If so, what is the nature of and remuneration for such occupations, in the case of each commissioner involved?
3.	How is participation in these outside occupations by members of the pension commission reconciled with the dictates of section 3 (12) of the Pension Act, chapter 207, R.S., 1952?


Mr. Bennett:: 1.	Yes. Dr. J. P. Laplante.
2.	Adviser to the Ottawa General Hospital and in that capacity he has no executive responsibility. The commission has no record as to any remuneration.
3.	Dr. Laplante's advisory services at the Ottawa General Hospital have not been held to be inconsistent with the performance of his duties as a commissioner, to which he gives full time.



VEGETABLE OILS AND VEGETABLE OIL PRODUCTS


Mr. Bryson:: 1.	How many pounds of vegetable oil seeds or vegetable oils imported into Canada in the year 1952-53 were used in the manufacture of margarine?
2.	What other products were manufactured from vegetable oil seed or vegetable oils imported into Canada in the year 1952-53?


Mr. Dickey:: 1 and 2. Information not available.



FARM LOAN BOARD


Mr. Michaud:: 1. How many applications were received by the farm loan board from the province of New Brunswick during the last calendar year?

2. How many such loans were granted In the province of New Brunswick during the said year?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	235.
2.	First mortgage loans disbursed-84; second mortgage loans disbursed-14.



TARIFF BOARD


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	How many references to the tariff board have been made by the Minister of Finance since January 1, 1952?
2.	What tariff items were included in each such reference, and on what date was each such reference made?
3.	What decision has been reached by the tariff board in respect of each such item?


Mr. Benidickson:: 1.	Four.
2.	Reference No. 112: ethylene glycol and related products; August 29, 1952; tariff items 208h, 208t, 219e, 220a(i), 711, 791, 923.
Reference No. 113: clothespins of wood, or of wood and metal, and parts thereof; December 23, 1953; tariff item 506a.
Reference No. 114: ethylene glycol for use in the manufacture of anti-freezing compounds and ethylene glycol base antifreeze; December 28, 1953; tariff items 208h, 220a(i), 711.
Reference No. 115: polyethylene resins and polyethylene films, sheets and tubing, etc., if necessary; February 5, 1953; tariff items 901 (a)8, 902(e), 905(c)l, 905(c)2, 906(e).
3.	Tariff board report on reference No. 112 was submitted to the Minister of Finance on May 1, 1953 and tabled in the House of Commons on November 25, 1953. The other references are under investigation.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


VEGETABLE OILS


Mr. Bryson:: 1.	From what countries did Canada import vegetable oil seeds, or vegetable oils in the year 1952-53?
2.	What kinds of vegetable oil seeds, or vegetable oils, and how many pounds of each kind were imported from each country?
3.	What was the value of each kind of vegetable oil seed or vegetable oil imported from each country in 1952-53?
4.	What was the tariff collected on each kind of vegetable oil seed or vegetable oil imported from each country?


John Horace Dickey: Return tabled.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Hardie:: What has been the cost of construction and maintenance of buildings and equipment occupied and
83276-223i
Orders for Returns
used as offices or residences in the Northwest Territories by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources for each year beginning April 1, 1945 to March 31, 1953?



GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS-LIVING ALLOWANCES,

Mr. Diefenbaker:: How many government officials or employees, etc., in the year 1953, with salaries in excess of $4,000 per year, received living allowances or expenses in excess of $5,000 per year additional to such salaries?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I have spoken to the hon. member, and I understand that what he meant by "government officials or employees, etc.," are regular servants of the government of Canada itself, not the people who are employed by crown agencies, but including employees outside Canada in embassies, trade commissions and so on. On that understanding, and if he would agree to have the year made the fiscal year rather than the calendar year, it would facilitate the answering of the question, and I would ask that it be made an order for return.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the question as modified is made an order for return.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Knowles:: For a copy of a typical letter (or typical letters, if there are any significant variations in different letters written on the subject), dated at any time since January 1, 1952, written by the customs check branch of the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue, to collectors of customs at customs ports, advising that a higher rate of duty, sales tax or excise tax is required, without necessarily giving the name of any firm involved in such correspondence.



CUSTOMS CHECK BRANCH


Stanley Howard Knowles: For a copy of a typical letter (or typical letters, if there are any significant variations in different letters written on the subject), dated at any time since January 1, 1952, written by the customs check branch of the customs and excise division of the Department of National Revenue, to collectors of customs at customs ports, advising that a lower rate of duty or the exemption from sales tax or excise tax is applicable, without necessarily giving the name of any firm involved in such correspondence.



SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when I answered orally a question on Monday asked hv the
3520	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) he called my attention to the fact that in 1950 in two cases some information that would be of the kind referred to in question 49 was given, and he asked if there had been any change in policy.
There has been no change in policy. I promised to look into the matter. I have done so, and I find that there were two exceptions to the application of the general rule in 1950 for reasons or under circumstances which were quite fully disclosed to the house at that time, but the validity of these, as reasons for a distinction, the hon. member might wish to discuss. It would take some time to restate them now. Perhaps it would be more convenient if they were restated and could be discussed on the estimates of the department concerned.



SUPREME POWER SUPPLIES LIMITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Rodney Adamson (York West):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The hon. member was out aeroplaning so I have not been able to get in touch with him. Has the company known as Supreme Power Supplies Limited, of Mimico, been refused an export permit for Canadian transformers or other goods for shipment to South America or any other country? If so, what are the reasons for such refusal? The minister may take this as a notice.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will take that question as notice.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the reports coming over the wires in the last hour or so concerning the statement made by Lewis L. Strauss, chairman of the atomic energy commission in the United States at President Eisenhower's press conference today with respect to the recent hydrogen bomb explosions, could arrangements be made for a similar Canadian official to make a full report on these matters at a meeting of the external affairs committee?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: It would not be possible for any Canadian official to make the same kind of report as that attributed to Admiral Strauss, for obvious reasons. But this matter can be discussed in its international aspects before the committee on external affairs-if and when we have that committee set up.



CANADIAN NATIONAL EXHIBITION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Secretary of State. Has the minister heard the rumour that the Duchess of Kent will open the Canadian National Exhibition next summer? If so, is there any substance in that rumour?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Secretary of State has heard no rumours to this effect.
(Later:]


George Harris Hees: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Has he received any word whatsoever from the United Kingdom regarding the possibility of the Duchess of Kent opening the Canadian National Exhibition?


John Whitney Pickersgill: When there are any
announcements to be made about visits of members of the royal family they will be made in the usual way, and not be made in answer to questions on the orders of the day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: The old steamroller on information.



ARMED FORCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. I must apologize for having given him such short notice. In view of the recent conviction of a Canadian soldier reported to have the mental age of ten, can the minister tell the house whether the Department of National Defence takes any precautions to prevent mental defectives from enlisting in the services? Is there not something better that Canada can do for these unfortunate people?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) having just returned after several days absence, and as I received notice of the hon. member's question just before entering the house, perhaps I might be permitted to deal with it.
I would say in the first place that each of the services has established through a set of mental and physical tests a general system of examination of recruits to give effect to a policy of enrolling the right type of service personnel. Whatever those standards may be, I can assure my hon. friend that they are such that those who pass them must be far beyond the mental age of ten. The tests are carefully worked out and have resulted extremely well in most cases. Of course there will always be borderline cases wherever the line is drawn. Some borderline cases turn out very well, and some not so well. This is one of the unfortunate ones.
I would like to add that I believe the average type of Canadian citizen enrolled in the services, whether he has served in Korea, in Europe or here in Canada, has achieved excellent results and has given an excellent account of himself.
As to the second question, my reply would be that I think most hon. members and the public generally agree that the standard of assistance accorded to our unfortunate citizens here in Canada is probably higher than in any other country of the world.



POSSIBILITY OF INCREASING LIMIT ON DUTY-FREE PURCHASES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance arising out of a news report of this morning. In view of the proposal by President Eisenhower that duty-free tourist purchases in Canada be increased from $500 to $1,000, is the Canadian government prepared to increase the value of duty-free goods that Canadians can purchase in the United States?


Hon. Douglas Abbott (Minister of Finance):: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to restrain his curiosity until next Tuesday night.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would
Inquiries of the Ministry he care to make a statement as to the purpose of the convening here in Ottawa tomorrow of officials representing the fisheries of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec, as well as fish exported from Newfoundland.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, there were other applications by representatives of the fisheries for a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair). My own meeting is concerned with an organization in Newfoundland known as NAFEL. That is the organization which has charge of the exporting of Newfoundland salt cod to foreign countries. We are going into a discussion of marketing problems for the next twelve months, and the meeting tomorrow is for that purpose.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask a supplementary question? Will there be any fisheries officials from any of the other provinces, besides NAFEL?


Clarence Decatur Howe: So far as I know, no other officials have been invited. If they are here they will perhaps be admitted. But invitations went to NAFEL only.



DIVISION OF PINK SALMON RUN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimall-Saanich):: May I ask the Minister of Fisheries if he would inform the house as to the progress that is being made in connection with the international proposed division of the pink salmon run, concerning which he made an announcement in Vancouver last week.


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: No progress has been made. We have made inquiries and had discussions with the United States but as yet there has been no definite progress in setting up a commission similar, for example, to the international sockeye salmon commission.



GRADES REQUIRED TO FILL PRESENT DEMANDS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement yesterday with respect to the disposal of western wheat, wherein he stated that the wheat board is at present going to call for No. 2 wheat, would he inform the house what grade or grades of
3522	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry wheat are needed by the wheat board to fill present sales demands, and what percentage or quantity, and how substantial is this demand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the requirements at the seaports vary from week to week and from month to month, depending upon the nature of the sales. Last fall there was a shortage of Durum wheat at the seaports, and also a considerable shortage of oats at the lakehead. I know we are always being asked for offerings of Durum wheat, and No. 3 northern has been popular. But those are matters entirely in the hands of the wheat board. Bulletins are put out to country elevators giving certain shipping instructions for particular grains and grades of grain.



INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM PAYMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in reference to the interim payment of approximately $60 million which is now being paid by the Canadian wheat board to producers. Can the minister state what will be the approximate payment to individual farmers?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It depends a good deal on whether we are talking about a large or a small farm; but if the farmer would multiply the number of bushels of wheat that he delivered last year by 11 cents he would approximate very closely what is coming to him.



DISPOSAL OP WESTERN SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Clarence Decatur Howe: Yesterday at this time, in answer to a question by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I made a statement with respect to the marketing of grain in western Canada. Arising from my statement, certain questions were asked by hon. members and I undertook to provide further information.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) asked for the breakdown of the 410 million bushels which I stated had been marketed by producers from August 1, 1953, to date. The breakdown is as follows: wheat, 265 million bushels; oats, 65 million bushels; barley, 66-5 million bushels; rye, 6-8 million bushels; flaxseed, 6-7 million bushels, making a total of 410 million bushels.


The hon. member for Prince Albert asked for an estimate of the number of bushels of grain which will be in farmers' hands when harvesting of the 1954 crop commences. Questionnaires completed for the wheat board by elevator agents and others indicated that there would be some 900 million bushels of deliverable grain this year, including 209 million bushels that were in farmers' hands in western Canada on August 1 last. If the total marketing figure during the present crop year of 600 million bushels is achieved-that is the figure I used in my statement yesterday-there will be approximately 300 million bushels in farmers' hands on the prairies on August 1 of this year. This will compare, as I have said, with 209 million bushels last year at the same time and represents, I think, a good performance, considering the obvious accumulative effect of three successive bumper crops.
(Translation):



ST. JOHNS ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE QUESTION AS TO STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Clax-ton). It is supplementary to the other questions I have asked him regarding St. Johns Military College.
I have already asked the minister if the five professors hired for St. Johns Military College were bilingual. The minister first replied that there was no truth in my assertion.


An hon. Member:: Your forty minutes are up.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Later, I placed two other questions on the order paper in connection with the same matter and the minister replied that they spoke only one language. Therefore, this afternoon, I would like to know which of the two answers I should accept.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me say to the hon. member that the next time he asks questions on the orders of the day, he might perhaps dispense with summing up the questions he has already asked. I would like the hon. member to co-operate in this respect.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Mr. Speaker, I am surely not objecting, but I thought it necessary to give a brief summary in order to get a definite answer to the question I asked this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. minister going to reply?


Hon. Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have already given a correct and full answer to the question asked by the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). However, I might add that it is not always possible to say whether a man is bilingual or not; he may be more or less. All five may speak French, but they do not teach in French, just as the ten French-speaking professors do not teach in English.


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: I would luce to ask a supplementary question of the minister. He said that it is not possible to ascertain whether a person is bilingual or not. May I ask the hon. minister to tell me what was written in the application forms sent by these five professors to the Department of National Defence? Did they state that they were bilingual?


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I think that the hon. member could carry on his investigation by placing his questions on the order paper.
(Text):



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Yesterday the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked me a question whether the international joint commission had made any decision or recommendation concerning the Mica creek dam project in British Columbia. The reply is that no report has yet been made by the international joint commission and, in fact, the commission's engineering board has not yet completed its study of the Columbia river basin. Such a study may not be completed for another few years. Included in the studies made, as part of the reference on the Columbia river basin made to the international joint commission in 1944 by the United States and Canadian governments, is the proposed development of Mica creek dam.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LAND IN NEW BRUNSWICK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Can the Minister of National Defence give me a definite answer to a question I asked yesterday, which was dealt with by the associate minister?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I have been endeavouring to rise to tell the hon. member for Royal that the tentative reply I made yesterday I have confirmed, namely, that there is no intention on the part of the Department of National Defence to acquire additional land east of Gagetown across the Saint John river.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister asked the appropriate officials of the combines investigation branch to look into the concerted action of the chartered banks in increasing their service charge on cheques to 10 cents, to determine whether such action, under which all banks have arrived at the same figure, is contrary to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question, which reached me only after a late lunch, just before I came into the house. The answer to my hon. friend's question is no, for the reason that the director, where he thinks consideration or action is warranted, is accustomed to proceed without specific direction by the minister.



REFERENCE TO REMARKS OF MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE OVER C.B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. My question arises out of a report in today's Gazette regarding a speech which the minister made in the program "The Nation's Business" carried by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It quotes him as having said-


Some hon. Members:: Question.

External Affairs


Edward George McCullough: -if the
farmers want cash-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Will the hon. member put his question without quoting the minister?


Edward George McCullough: Is it
the policy of the government, as announced by the minister, to recommend, if the western farmers want cash, that they feed their surplus grain to livestock? If so, does he not feel that it might undermine the price structure of the livestock industry in Canada?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: In order to inform my hon. friend just exactly what I did say I shall send him a copy of the speech.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That items Nos. 84 to 103 inclusive, of the main estimates, 1954-55, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate which is now before this house, it is not my intention to be unduly repetitious nor to speak upon any of the subjects which have been discussed here during these past few days. It has been a lengthy debate but, in my opinion, it has been a most useful and worth-while one. We have heard discussion and statements from the government and from members of the opposition on such matters as the Berlin conference, the projected Geneva conference, and arms to Pakistan; arguments for and against the recognition of Red China; and academic discussions on communism and anti-communism. All of these things are of the utmost importance and the discussion was worth while. However, Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak at all on all of those matters, important as they are. I do not profess to be an expert on foreign affairs and so I shall leave all those discussions to those who are experts or who profess to be. There is, however, one phase that comes under this debate upon which I feel impelled to speak. In doing so, I admit I am not doing it because I am a scientist; I am not. I am doing it because of the crucial and critical matters that have been drawn to the attention of the peoples of the world, in particular in the last few weeks. I refer to the matter of the hydrogen bomb.

It has been intimated clearly upon more than one occasion by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) that he intends to speak and that he looks forward with anticipation to the remarks which he will make at the close of this debate. I fully realize that he will undoubtedly be commenting upon many of the things that have been said by the various speakers during the past few days and will undoubtedly be answering a number of the questions that have been hurled at him. But my purpose in rising at this time is to tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I think he would be seriously derelict in his duty or in his responsibility if he were not able, when he speaks, to take the House of Commons and the people of Canada into his confidence and give all the information possible as to the situation with regard to the hydrogen bomb; the policies as far as he knows them that are now in existence involving the experimentation in the use of that bomb; and, of more importance, the proposals which the minister may have or, I think I will say, should have as to the stand which Canada should take in this critical period of our history.
There are undoubtedly millions of people in this world who believe in the statement that a deity created the world in six days and rested on the seventh. There are undoubtedly many more millions who do not take that view but who accept the view of scientists that through the process of evolution over millions of years the world as we know it came to its present form. I am not going into any academic discussion of how the world came into being. But the fact is this. Over untold millions of years there has been in existence this world, but we are now in the position, in the year 1954, where all the evidence makes it completely conclusive that, unless there is some sanity in the parliaments of the world and unless we arrive at sanity between the nations of the world, man in his stupidity can in the matter of minutes or hours definitely destroy mankind and perhaps the world itself.
Admittedly we are a small nation but we are an important one. In my humble opinion this house could do well by spending a little bit more time to see whether it would not be possible for us to arrive at policies and conclusions whereby the Secretary of State for External Affairs or perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) could give a militant, sane and dynamic lead to the other leaders throughout the world as to what should be done in view of the situation as it is understood by the people since the explosion of the first hydrogen bomb on March 1. It is no exaggeration to state that if we have such people who can release the

spark, another war might start. It was only the spark of the shooting of one man of royalty that, officially at least, started the first world war. It was the lunacy of one man in Germany, with his dreams of power, that caused the actions that set off the spark which started the second world war. Who knows what may start the third? If it does start, the evidence is conclusive that it means the end of mankind.
We have the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs before the Ottawa Catholic youth organization, as reported in the press only a few days ago:
If the nations of the world engage in a third world war, civilization would be destroyed, . . .
That is our own Secretary of State for External Affairs. In this morning's Globe and Mail we find a statement attributed to one who should know. I refer to Defence Secretary Charles E. Wilson of the United States. Here is what he has to say, as reported in the paper:
Defence Secretary Charles E. Wilson said today the unbelievable power unleashed in test H-bomb explosions this month dwarfed the atomic bomb just as the A-bomb dwarfed TNT bombs of the second world war.
Mr. Holifield, a member of the United States congress and a member of the congressional atomic energy committee, who saw the March 1 explosion, has this to say, as reported in the same paper:
Holifield, who saw the effects of the titanic March 1 hydrogen explosion, told the house, however, that "civil defence against atomic-hydrogen attack is a delusion . . . mass extermination of millions in any or all nations can occur during a week end."
And further:
Holifield said complete military defence against supersonic planes or missiles with atomic-hydrogen warheads is impossible and non-existent.
Mr. Wilson said further:
Wilson was asked at a news conference whether the U.S. intends to use the H-bomb if it is involved in another war. He replied: "Don't you think it would be foolish to spend billions unless you are prepared to use them under some circumstances?"
I think you will understand, Mr. Speaker, the reason why I feel so intensely about this matter. Here we have statements by leaders of the North American continent, including our own Secretary of State for External Affairs, the defence secretary of the United States and a member of the congress of the United States who saw that explosion on March 1. They all agreed that the result of the destructive power of the hydrogen bomb means the end of mankind, and they also stated that there is no military or civil defence whatsoever against the power of the hydrogen bomb.
External Affairs
That is why I suggest that this matter should be discussed and a lead given to us and, I hope, to the world, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). This was brought very forcibly to my attention in an excellent editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Daily Sun on March 27. With your permission, sir, I would like to quote part of that editorial. It states:
Churchill contemplating the effects of H-bombing nearly weeps in public. Eisenhower, stupefied by news of the scientists' surprise, implies he is stunned by bombing possibilities. All common men everywhere, probably even in Russia, are aghast and voice their dread. Yet no move is made to deal with the H-bomb threat. We believe common men hold their safety and desire to live at peace in their own hands. We believe they can make themselves heard through their governments and elected representatives. Convinced that now is the time for positive action, we suggest the cabinet at Ottawa, through Prime Minister St. Laurent, call for a world conference using the machinery of the United Nations headquarters at New York.
We suggest that he lose no time in asking for this conference. In many countries Canada has ambassadors. Let them pass on the call.
The conference should be summoned in a spirit of absolute objectivity. There must be no ideological fences erected. It must be bombs and nothing but the bombs.
The time for form and ceremony is past and the hour demands immediate action by some one man who does not fear to risk position, or the condescending smiles of statesmen higher in the councils of the world.
I believe that is an excellent editorial, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a call to members of this house to do a little soul searching and see if we cannot adopt a responsible attitude at this session, in this house, at this time and get away from an academic discussion of communism, anti-communism, the recognition of China, or what happened at the Berlin conference, and lay down a program in clear terms calling now for the rule of sanity among the leaders of the nations of this world. The only place I know where such can be directed is through the medium of the United Nations.
A few years ago we might have called that epoch the age of TNT. That gave way to the age of the atom, but already the atom has given way to the hydrogen bomb. I have been trying to find out something about the atomic and hydrogen bomb and I came across what I believe is a magnificent book which can be understood by laymen. It is entitled, "Scientific American Reader". Upon reading that book I learned that there are two differences between the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb. The atomic bomb and indeed the entire atomic energy enterprise rests ultimately on the basic reaction following the splitting of uranium 235. On the other hand, the hydrogen bomb is not based on fission, it is based on fusion. There is

External Affairs
another major difference. Atomic energy can be used not only for destruction but also for construction and for power. If this scientific journal is correct, the hydrogen bomb can never be used, or at least cannot now be used, for constructive purposes. It can only be used in the sense of destruction.
I would like to quote one paragraph from an article in this book written by that great North American physicist Louis N. Ridenour. This is what he says:
. . . while fission can be controlled in an orderlyway to produce useful power in a reactor, the fusion reaction offers no prospect at the present time of any use except in terms of an explosion. We cannot find in the development of the fusion bomb any such peacetime values as are inherent in the development of nuclear fission. Except where the uses of peace demand the detonation of an explosive equivalent to, say, a million tons of TNT, there is no use for a fusion reaction. Thus when we discuss the "hydrogen bomb" we are clearly speaking of a weapon, and a weapon only.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that leads me to what I may call a more practical point. Can we have some understanding as to what is taking place in the Pacific? May I say that I am not directing any criticism against the United States alone, but I believe we have got to direct our thinking toward the United States and the U.S.S.R., both of whom have experimented in exploding a hydrogen bomb.
I was amazed to read in today's issue of the New York Times that it is only in the last six months that the United States has caught up with the technology of the U.S.S.R. in the explosion of the hydrogen bomb. This is not a matter which concerns the U.S.S.R. and the United States only. It is a matter which concerns the world. It definitely concerns us in the Dominion of Canada, particularly as far as the explosions in the Pacific are concerned.
I would like to know by what authority and by what power the United States obtains rule over a part of the Pacific ocean in regard to current hydrogen experiments which may affect the people of the Dominion of Canada. President Eisenhower himself admitted that the scientists have been amazed. They have moved into the realm of the unknown, a realm in which I believe they have no business. Indeed, they are entering into the realm of the supernatural. They were amazed by the explosion on March 1, and they have already stated that for the explosion scheduled for April they will extend the official danger area by 20 times, and it is only recently that some of the things which have occurred have come to light.
If we can accept the press reports, what do we find? We find that there was radioactive ash over 71 miles from the point of the

explosion, and there are a number of Japanese sailors who are living proof of that. We also find that the explosion was such that United States marines 225 miles away saw the explosion. When you consider the perimeter of the earth it will be evident that, to see an explosion 225 miles away, the effects of that explosion would have to go far up into the heavens. We also learned that when United States scientists made certain tests they found the ocean was radioactive 800 miles away from the point of the explosion.
That was their smallest bomb. Now, Mr. Speaker, where can this lead to and why am I as a Canadian so interested? I am interested not only from the viewpoint of preventing war and saving mankind and civilization, but also from the viewpoint of the people of Canada. Already we have heard several hon. members ask questions in this house about the radioactive snow in Saskatchewan and in Winnipeg, Manitoba. We have heard it said:	Yes, it was radioactive but not
dangerous. It may not have been dangerous with that first explosion but there it is over 5,000 miles from the point of explosion. How do we know that it will not be dangerous to the people of this country and other countries when the larger bomb goes off? We have also got to recognize that so far as the United States is concerned these explosions take place in the Pacific ocean. I have actually met people who have the fallacious view that is the place to explode such bombs because there the danger disseminates. It diffuses, and within miles it is gone. Oceanography proves that is a fallacy. It is not like throwing a pebble into a little pool where the concentric circles gradually diminish and disappear.
Oceanography proves that the ocean is different because as you have highways across Canada, as you have channels of air in the atmosphere above us, so you have currents and actual rivers in the ocean cutting through narrow sections of the entire ocean. Sometimes they are only a few miles wide and sometimes several hundred miles wide, but whether in the upper level of the ocean or in what has been referred to as the sunless sea, the bottom section of the ocean, there are these channels of currents and rivers. Some of these channels and currents that start in the mid-Pacific thousands of miles from the Canadian coast reach the shore of the province of British Columbia. It is already admitted that the ocean was found to be radioactive 800 miles from the small explosion. What will happen with the larger explosion when we have these currents that touch the Canadian coast?

You may say that some of these things are problematical. I admit that they are, but in view of what we have read and heard in the past few,weeks there are mighty serious questions that should be asked and not only asked but answered. The minister should tell us as far as he can about what information he has gained from consultation with the United States and also through the United Nations with respect to the position of the U.S.S.R. I say that it is a heinous thing that the world's two most powerful nations, the U.S.S.R. and the United States, should take into their own hands the power of a physical god on earth by their experimentation with and probable use of the hydrogen bomb.
I speak as an individual. We are only a small nation but we should make our voice heard. With the stature and status that Canada has it can give a lead. At least the words of the minister would be noted in the press and in the consultative bodies of the world if he would come out with a definite statement and challenge at this time in the rostrum of 15 million people, the House of Commons of Canada.
That is the practical side of the question. There is also the moral aspect, and I should like to read certain remarks of the physicist I quoted a few moments ago beause they put the situation in far better words than I could choose. I think they drive home the point exceptionally well. He said:
I believe the most important question is the moral one: can we who have always insisted on morality and human decency between nations as well as inside our own country, introduce this weapon of total annihilation into the world? . . . What would an all-out war fought with hydrogen bombs mean? It would mean the obliteration of all large cities and probably of many smaller ones, and the killing of most of their inhabitants. After such a war, nothing that resembled present civilization would remain. The fight for mere survival would dominate everything. The destruction of the cities might set technology back a hundred years or more. In a generation even the knowledge of technology and science might disappear, because there would be no opportunity to practise them. Indeed it is likely that technology and science, having brought such utter misery upon man, would be suspected as works of the devil, and that a new dark age would begin on earth.
I think these words are true. I think they point up in concise form the statements that have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he says that a third world war will mean the destruction of civilization. Statements have been made throughout the world that another war will mean the end of mankind. The secretary of war of the United States has stated that they are not producing these bombs for fun, that they hope they will be a
External Affairs
deterrent but that if a spark starts a war then under certain circumstances this weapon will be used which it is admitted will destroy mankind and the nations of the world.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is time for a little common-sense thinking. I ask, and as a matter of fact I go further and plead with the minister, who, I know, has a great sense of responsibility and a great sense of justice, to take under advisement the giving of a lead at this time to the world, the issuing of a challenge to his colleagues in the United Nations to get down to the matter and discuss nothing else but bombs.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Speaker-


Harold Edward Winch: I am almost finished. We should realize our position in Canada, faced as we are by this unknown power with its radiation that can be carried by the currents of the sea and the air. We should realize the dangers with which we may be faced as the result of the action of another country in doing something that may be 4,000 or 5,000 miles from our shores. I do not want to reiterate. 1 am certain that the minister and other hon. members know what I have in mind. I feel very intensely about the matter and I look forward to the minister not only answering questions about the Berlin conference, the Geneva conference and the recognition of China but also with respect to what to my mind is paramount today, the question of the position of Canada with regard to the hydrogen bomb and what we can do about it.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: I was going to ask the hon. member a question. Does he not think that the President of the United States was following a plan of peace in his famous speech when he suggested to the world that the bomb should be outlawed? What was the reaction of Russia? When Russia did not co-operate should the United States have ceased its work and investigation? That is a very serious question. While Russia goes ahead should the United States stop and not continue its investigation?


Harold Edward Winch: I would not want anything I have said to be muddied by any implications. When 1 spoke I made it clear that I was referring to the countries that are experimenting with and using the hydrogen bomb, the United States and the U.S.S.R. It is wonderful to say: Let us abandon the bomb; let us outlaw it because we now see what its power is. But we should do more than talk; we should now go ahead and do it. I suggest that Canada can give a lead to the United Nations.

External Affairs


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: What more would you want the President of the United States to do than to ask the world to outlaw the bomb?


Mr. Roland Michener (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, having returned only yesterday from Pakistan and India I have not had the privilege of hearing this debate but I have heard enough to realize that further contributions may not be gratefully received. Nevertheless, I feel that this may be the only opportunity I shall have to make a very brief report on a conference which I think has some bearing on the subject matter of this debate. My journey took the same route as that of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), not by design, as was suggested by some, but because my purpose was to attend a conference in Lahore and it happened to take place shortly after his visit there.
I should like, first of all, to bear witness to the impression I got of his visit three weeks after he had been there, and while, in both Pakistan and India, the memory was fresh. The greatest respect was paid to our Prime Minister, and the relationships between those two countries and Canada were undoubtedly improved by that very gracious visit.
May I make another acknowledgment which my friend the minister may appreciate, namely that I and others who were on this mission received the greatest co-operation and assistance from our Canadian representatives in the cities where we needed their help. This began in London and was continued in New Delhi, the capital of India, and Karachi, the capital of Pakistan, where we were cordially aided and assisted in our unofficial purposes.
The conference, Mr. Speaker, was an entirely unofficial conference. It was a conference amongst the members of the commonwealth, a discussion meeting for the purpose of exchanging ideas and understanding each other's point of view, thus improving relationships. All members of the commonwealth were represented, that is the five older members of the commonwealth, of British origin, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, South Africa, New Zealand, and in addition the three new Asiatic members of the commonwealth. I take the opportunity of saying a word today just to explain my impression of the viewpoint of those three associates of ours in the commonwealth who are Asiatic countries.
The conference was held at Lahore, which is the capital city of Punjab, one of the provinces which constitute Pakistan. Pakistan, India and Ceylon are the three Asiatic members of the commonwealth. I think it was
fMr. Winch.]
fortunate that the Institute of International Affairs, which sponsors these conferences every five years, chose Pakistan as the scene of this conference. The conference brought together a very strong representative delegation from each of the countries of the commonwealth. The United Kingdom delegation, by way of illustration, had four members of the House of Commons, three of whom were former ministers, including a former chancellor of the exchequer, as well as a former marshal of the air force as a military adviser. Then, there were a number of academic people who make international studies their particular interest. Attached to them were members of three dependencies, two very fine citizens from the new federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, now approaching the point where they may become full members of the commonwealth.
There was an African lawyer of great ability from the West Indies who gave an excellent account of himself and of the experiment in self-government in the British West Indies, a very encouraging thing. Then, there was a minister from the Federation of Malaya, which is under a tutelage system, looking towards full self-government. From Canada we had a delegation of eight; from South Africa there were five or six representing different viewpoints; and there were delegates from Australia, New Zealand and so on. Pakistan was represented by a strong group of thirteen, two university presidents, and the Speaker of the Punjab legislature was chairman of their delegation. I believe he attended here the year before last when the commonwealth parliamentary association met in Ottawa. India had a large delegation.
Our discussions in that ancient city of Lahore, which was the capital of the Mogul empire at one time and later the scene of British administration of that great province, occupied twelve days. We ranged from the strategical and political relationship of the members of the commonwealth through racial and other matters which were of common interest. When I say that Canada was held in high esteem, I believe one reason is that we have never in our history been subjected to the charge of colonialism or imperialism and we have never had any serious race problems. These two elements of human relationships are always present in the minds of eastern people, and one has to think of them throughout any discussion of commonwealth relations. Canada is free from any difficulty on that score.
My impression of our Asiatic friends in the commonwealth was that their first interest, as countries having recently achieved their independence, was the economic development

of their own country. They appreciate their underdeveloped state. They appreciate that they lag behind other countries of the commonwealth, and their main concern is for an era of peace in which they can bring about the developments which will raise the standard of living in their own country.
The second feature that colours all their thinking is that common Asiatic view that the European has no right or place in dominating the people of Asia. I found, to my surprise, that concern of the Asiatic peoples even affected their view towards NATO. We regard NATO as an alliance for defensive purposes only and related to defence in western Europe, but they were so concerned about the presence in any Asiatic country of western Europeans that the presence of France in Indo-China was of more concern to them than the threat of communism. They felt that in some way NATO might be assisting France to maintain and carry on that conflict in Indo-China, which to them was very largely an imperialist struggle between a nationalist movement on the one hand and a western dominating power on the other.
I feel that our discussions did something to offset that view of the western defensive arrangement and the alliances involved. I have raised the question here because in any of our external relationships which involve commonwealth countries it is necessary to bear in mind that the Asiatic members of our group do feel more strongly about the subjugation of people in Asia, a subjugation which they have recently broken, than they do about the threat of communism. It will be a matter of education over a period of time to change that viewpoint, and it varies, of course, amongst the three countries concerned.
I found that Pakistan was very cordially concerned with the problems of the West, much more interested than India whose delegation reiterated the neutrality policies of Mr. Nehru and, with difficulty, would concede that they were in any need of following any other course. Now, that was the main impression of the conference that I wanted to mention. I mention this view of our Asiatic friends because I feel that their importance in the world today is such that it is to our interest, not only because they are members of the commonwealth but in the broader view of understanding of what moves them in this field of external affairs.
India, as you know, is a country of 340 million people. I suppose that is the greatest part of the population of the commonwealth. From this distance we may regard Pakistan as a small country, but with 30 million people in its western part and 43 million in the
External Affairs
eastern half, a total of 73 million, it places seventh among the nations of the world. They claim to be fifth, but I think Indonesia and Germany have to be counted in there. Ceylon is not an inconsiderable country, but is an island and is, I think, less concerned about current world affairs than the other two. The conference I believe brought to these two big Asiatic partners of ours some idea of the way the western countries feel about and look at the problem of communism. While India was not prepared to align herself positively with either the West or the East, but was content to keep to a middle position, Pakistan's recent moves-her treaty with Turkey and her acceptance of American military aid, and the views we heard expressed at this conference-would definitely indicate that she is to be counted as one of the western group.
As I say, the importance of these countries lies partly in their population and partly in the role they have to play in the future. We, as members of a group which have nothing to bind us together other than good will, can play a very useful part in retaining the confidence, good will and interest which exists in those countries today.
They value particularly the common parliamentary experience which has been their inheritance from British rule. They carry on their business in English. In fact, I think it would be impossible in Pakistan to conduct government without the use of English. And even in India it was freely expressed that although English was the language of their former rulers, it was nevertheless a great language in the world and had the additional advantage to them of being a common means of communication within the country as well as a means of communication in all their external relationships. I dare say that despite the nationalistic moves to promote Urdu and Hindi as the respective languages for the two countries, English will be the common means of communication of those governments and will be a common bond between those countries and the rest of the commonwealth.
The conference played some significant part, I suggest, in improving the understanding which is so essential. After all, understanding is the cement which makes these relationships grow and improve. I would close by making reference to Sir Edward Grey's remark, made in a different context, that nothing better promotes understanding than a consciousness of being understood.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that on a number of occasions since coming to this house I have been tempted to think that a great deal of time has been spent on very small matters.

External Affairs
However, when we entered upon this particular debate, and as it has continued, it has been my conviction that we are now dealing with a phase of our deliberations that is of paramount importance.
I have been taught that men's relationships in life are of paramount concern. Those relationships perhaps can be summed up under three categories, the first of which is man's relationship to God. I feel that that is basic; that is the foundation.
The second is our relationship to our fellow man; and that is of tremendous importance.
The third is our relationship to things, or to the material world around us. It seems to me that we have been dealing with the most difficult of those three, namely our relationship with our fellow man. As I have been considering this matter and listening to the debates a verse from Scripture has come to my mind repeatedly. I shall not preach a sermon, although I am almost convinced that one would not be altogether out of order in doing so-for instance Winch versus the Bible, or something to that effect. But the verse is this:
If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
I think that verse should be kept in mind; it is a splendid exhortation. I think that not only in our individual relationships but in our relationships with the various nations of the world we should keep in mind that exhortation from the book of Romans. Humanity being what it is, frictions are bound to arise. But so far as possible I think we must accept the responsibility for removing those causes of friction and cultivating friendships among all men. We must strive with other nations for the establishment of good will among all the peoples of the world.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to come to the matter which prompted me to enter this debate- and I shall not take very long this afternoon -I should like to speak of my own attitude and that of the group to which I belong toward this great question of peace. This has always been a great and wonderful theme. It has been something that men have sought after and nations have coveted. From one viewpoint alone, the moral viewpoint, we ought to search and explore every avenue whereby peace can be secured.
Now when we consider, as we have been considering the atomic bomb and the hydrogen bomb, and its effects and possibilities, the importance of this theme is further enhanced. Before I came here for the opening of the session last fall a delegation of about twenty men and women called upon me and asked me one question:	What is

your attitude toward peace? I was very happy to be able to tell them that I thought I was just as much in favour of peace as they were. I was just as anxious to see peace established and maintained as they were. And certainly that is still my attitude -and because of the fact that I suppose most of our families have suffered the results of war. I have no doubt that practically all our families have paid some price in wars that have been fought in the past.
Therefore my heart cries out for peace in the world; my prayer is for peace. And I know that other members in this group as well as other members in the House of Commons desire those same conditions of peace.
Following my maiden speech I had a letter from one of my constituents in which very kindly he referred to the remarks I had made, but said, "I deplore the fact that you did not raise your voice for the cause of peace." I replied of course and told him he had misread my speech, and gave him the part that dealt especially with this particular matter.
However, as we think of it today, as I have said, with the tremendous possibilities of war and the potential forces that are placed at man's disposal, we all desire in some way or other to find peace established in this world of ours. I am now speaking for the Social Credit group when I say we urge that every effort be made to resolve the differences between those behind the iron curtain and the free nations of the world. Every possible endeavour should be made in order to accomplish that end. No one in this group wants war. We do not desire just the cessation of hostilities; we desire that a true and lasting peace shall be established on earth.
We deplore aggression. We join with those who advocate collective action by the United Nations to stop acts of aggression, and we take the position that Canada should not and must not be a party to aggression in any sense. However, I think we must be realistic and realize that the world is in great danger of aggressive acts and intentions by other nations, and no one knows when or where they may create incidents- I say "they may create incidents"-which could lead to war. And should that happen -and we sincerely hope and pray that it may not-what is our stand going to be?
I am sure that every group in this house, and perhaps I should say all members with the exception of some hon. members in the group to my right, would take the view that the free nations of the world must not be let down, nor can we let our freedom and all that we hold dear be lost by default.

I think I should call attention to the statement made by the leader of our party in the speech that he delivered on January 29 in the debate on external affairs. These are the words, as found at page 1611 of Hansard:
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 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 all-out 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.
Then he went on to say-and I just quote a short statement:
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.
I wanted to place that on record, Mr. Speaker, because it states in a very definite and positive manner the policy of this particular group, and this afternoon I subscribe to that statement. My hope and my prayer is that in every way possible our leaders, this government and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will exercise the influence that they have in the councils of the nations to bring about a true and a lasting peace.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: During the course of this debate we have heard a great many comments about the hydrogen bomb. The hydrogen bomb is not of itself any problem, of course. It is merely a mechanical contrivance devised by man, and there would be no problem of the hydrogen bomb except
External Affairs
for two forces that are operating against each other in the world today. We have always had those two forces. One is a reasonable and logical force, and the other is an emotional one. They have been operating against each other all through history. You have a good example of that today. The emotional one is nationalism and the logical one is the desire of the countries of the world today to try to get together in some kind of national cooperation such as the United Nations and on a smaller scale such as NATO, and so on.
Nationalism has always been a factor. That is very true, but today it has become more prominent because of the political emergence of the Asiatic countries, particularly those of southeast Asia, and the Middle Eastern countries. These countries, for varying periods of time, have been under the domination of many of the western countries, and they have recently emerged as individual entities. Thus the emotional question of nationalism has made itself very prominent indeed today.
What is this thing called "nationalism"? You see the word used a lot, and I think we ought to make some attempt to define what it might be. A very simple definition, which I can assure you is my own, and no one else's, and of course open to criticism, is that nationalism is the determination of a group of individuals to assert themselves. To go on from there, I say "a group of individuals", and you may ask:	Can we narrow it down
even more? Well, since individuals tend to identify themselves with groups of people, the emotional reasoning can be referred back to the individual. I think this can be best exemplified by a little story I once heard. It was during Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee, when all the princes from India and from other parts of the empire at that time were travelling through the streets of London. A little cockney down on the corner poked his neighbour as one particularly gorgeous Indian prince was going by all bejewelled and on a bejewelled elephant and said: "Look, we owns him." I think that illustrates fairly well how this business of the individual identifying himself with a group comes about, and it is very important.
We have now got down to individuals, and I am trying to simplify this very complex problem. What drives an individual to want to assert himself?
In the last century a prominent Viennese gentleman called Sigmund Freud, with whose name I think everybody is familiar, started the study of what motivated human beings. I think by and large psychologists, people who study the reasons for human behaviour, would generally agree even yet that probably the basic reason for human beings desiring to assert themselves is probably related

External Affairs
back to-and I hesitate to use this word in the house-the sex drive. In any event, the human desire to assert one's self really does go back to some emotional rather than logical drive. There are various ways that can aggravate or increase this desire to assert one's self. In some cases it is just like Topsy in "Uncle Tom's Cabin", just growing up, just being adolescent; you want to show off to your elders a little bit and to make them think that you really are important and that you do know something.
But on the other hand certain things such as suppression and frustration and so on can also make people want to assert themselves. You can now apply these things to groups; I mean groups of people who have been suppressed or frustrated in their national desires. That can aggravate their nationalism or their desire to assert themselves. Other things can enter into it, such as just growing up as in the case of a new country, such as the new Asiatic countries. Even in Canada, for example, we are touchy about little things such as a national flag and the desire that Americans should not think that the King or the Queen actually rule us and that we do not rule ourselves. We are very touchy on little things like that. Nationalism can take various forms.
First of all, let us see about the individual. There are two forms, namely the active and the passive. The passive form of nationalism is of course usually very constructive. Let us look at the individual who wants to assert himself in a constructive way. He may become a great artist or a great scientist or something like that and do something constructive. This again applies to a group of people or individuals such as a country. Ancient Egypt is a good example. Egypt did a lot to contribute to the arts of peace and they were never particularly prominent in war. Ancient Greece in its early days was more noted for the arts of peace than for the arts of war and so on. These are examples of constructive nationalism.
In the more active aspect as far as individuals are concerned, you have the town bully who wants to force his will on somebody else and you have religious fanatics who are determined to force their religious views down somebody else's throat. Referring again to groups of people, you have nations who desire to assert themselves by forcing their national culture upon everyone else. Sometimes people refer to the United States as wishing to do that, thinking that they have the best way of life and wanting to make sure that everybody else has it. In the Middle Ages the Mohammedans and the Turks had that point of view. They tried to

force the Islamic cultures on a large part of Europe. Certain nations have strong national political views, like Russia, and desire to force communism on the rest of the world.
I think I have dealt long enough with nationalism in an abstract way and should get down to a consideration of just where does this affect Canada. As I have said, we have a little bit of nationalism in Canada; I refer to our touchiness about things such as the flag and so on.
I think Canada is in a particularly fortunate position in the world. We often hear about Canada being a linchpin between England and the United States and that we can interpret England to the United States and vice versa. I think Canada should continue to be this kind of linchpin, but I think we could very well be another linchpin in the same kind of world machine. I think we would make a very fine linchpin between the new Asiatic countries and the western world such as United States, Great Britain, France and so on. I think Canada is probably the best suited to do this of all the western countries.
The remarks that have just been made by my colleague, the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Michener) who has just returned from the East, express that very well. Canada, like the new Asiatic countries, is a new country in a political sense. It is not, of course, in a cultural sense like the Asiatic countries. Their cultural history goes back centuries and even for thousands of years. But politically Asiatic countries like Pakistan, Indonesia, the Philippines and the Middle Eastern countries like Iraq, Iran and Egypt are all new countries politically. So is Canada. It is something we have in common.
Canada has never been in a position where we have attempted to dominate these countries in a political sense as Great Britain, France and the United States have done in the past or in the economic sense as I think the United States has often been falsely accused of doing nowadays. For those reasons the newer countries do not suspect the motives of Canada. More than that, we are too small, at least on a population basis, to attempt to force our will on those other countries and for that reason we are not suspect. More than that, for the last few years we have been very generous in giving gifts of food and mutual aid-I refer to such things as the Colombo plan and so on-to these Asiatic countries. I think they appreciate it, and they do not suspect our motives.
I have some knowledge of this matter in a personal way. There are a number of people from Pakistan living in the town in

which I live. They have been there for almost a year now, and they will be there a little bit longer, learning agricultural methods. I have talked to them on many occasions. These people like Canada a great deal. They have been completely accepted in the community. They have had a very good time here. They like this country. They realize that we are not in any way attempting to interfere in their domestic affairs, in their foreign affairs or anything else, and that we only have a genuine desire to help them. They realize that when we give something to those countries we are not asking any quid pro quo in exchange. For these reasons I think that Canada should try to become a new linchpin between the East and the West and act as an interpreter of the western viewpoint to the East. My colleague from Vancouver -Quadra (Mr. Green) suggested a little bit earlier that Canada should enter into some of these Pacific pacts and take an active part. I thoroughly agree with him. I think that such participation would assist us in becoming a linchpin.
Mr. Speaker, I hope these few .remarks will be of some help. Accordingly, I should just like to commend them to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).


Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we are looking forward to hearing the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). In order to facilitate matters I am going to make my remarks as brief as possible. However, as the member for Regina City I feel that I have a duty to my constituents to place before this house some observations which I feel might be of some value to the minister and to the government, and to comment upon some of the remarks that have been made during the course of this debate.
I for one am not perturbed by the fact that this debate has gone on for a number of days. As a faithful reader of Hansard for quite some years before coming to this house I have always felt a little bit of alarm at the manner in which external affairs were treated in the house; I refer to the idea that external affairs were something for which we would just set aside a day for a debate and then, after disposing of it in that summary fashion, get on with the business of the house. I feel that this debate indicates keen interest in external affairs among members of this house; and I think that is a reflection of the keen interest in foreign affairs throughout the country.
After listening to some of the speeches made in the debate, I found that there are many that I thoroughly appreciate. As to a
External Affairs
number of the speeches made, while I did not appreciate all the contents or all the remarks in those speeches, nevertheless I felt that they made a distinct contribution to the debate. They were made in a very forthright manner. They were based on some degree of logic, unlike some of the speeches which departed almost entirely from any semblance to logic or historical fact. Consequently I want to deal with a number of matters that I think have been dealt with perhaps in an incorrect way in the house.
A great deal has been said during the course of this debate on the question of the recognition of the Peking government, and I believe part of the difficulty, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the public, particularly the public in the United States, has been sold the idea that there is something synonymous between the terms recognition and approval. Of course, feeling as we do about the Chinese government, if recognition did imply any degree of approval I am sure we would disapprove of such recognition. But the difficulty we find ourselves in today is that many people will not realize that recognition does not involve approval.
When we of the C.C.F. have from time to time recommended the recognition of the Chinese government we have had people call us "fellow travellers" and make uncomplimentary remarks, completely ignoring the fact that the recognition of the Peking government has been advocated by many Canadians in various walks of life and of various political parties. The point of view we have set forth is the point of view taken by the British Conservative government. It will be recalled that last evening the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) dealt with that very matter and pointed out that the British Conservative government under the leadership of the Right Hon. Sir Winston Churchill today recognize the Peking government. If that government did not approve of the policy of recognition it would be a relatively simple matter for the British government to withdraw their recognition. But they have not done so. Therefore, if there is anything wrong about our advocacy of the recognition of the Peking government then the criticism directed against us must also be directed against the British government. Even in our own country it will be noted by those who follow the press that many leading newspapers all across Canada have come out in support of the recognition of the Peking government.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made his statement on Thursday last he quoted from an editorial which was published in the Ottawa Journal on Friday, March 12.

External Affairs
The Prime Minister did not quote the editorial in its entirety, but I should like to draw the attention of the house to several paragraphs of that editorial which I believe are pertinent to the point under discussion. The Journal goes on to say:
No country can ever know with certainty whether the government possessed by some other country is the government its people want. And the fact is that Canada now recognizes any number of countries without being at all sure that their government is what their people want. There is Russia, and Czechoslovakia, and Poland, and Spain; possibly others.
What Canada does, and must be compelled to do, and what all other countries must be compelled to do sooner or later, just because it is the only sensible practicable way, is to recognize the government of the country which is in effective control -which exists in fact. That, of course, must apply to China. There in an ancient historic nation a revolutionary movement defeated the government of Chiang Kai-shek, drove its armies from the China mainland, set up a new regime. Can we in Canada say sensibly or realistically that this new regime cannot act for the Chinese people, that it is not what the Chinese people want, and that until we discover that it is what the Chinese people want, we cannot recognize it as China's government, exercising authority.
The next day the Ottawa Citizen said almost the very same thing, the thing that we of the C.C.F. group have been saying. The Citizen editorial of March 13, under the heading "Korean Criticism of Mr. St. Laurent" said:
"Korea Republic", a semi-official newspaper published in Seoul, has criticized Prime Minister St. Laurent's opinion that diplomatic recognition of communist China is ultimately inevitable. In its criticism, the newspaper has expressed a viewpoint common to the lunatic fringe of the anticommunist camp, which would deny all hope of a peaceful settlement of issues that contribute to world tension. Korea Republic suggests that anyone, however well meaning, is a "communist tool", if he advocates a course, on any specific issue, that has been approved by the communists; further that diplomatic recognition of the Peiping regime constitutes moral acceptance. On both counts, Korea Republic is surely in error.
Decisions in the non-communist world should not be based essentially on whether or not the communists would favour them, so much as on whether they would help establish a stable peace without weakening the West vis-d-vis Russia and China. If statesmen are to become "communist tools" whenever their views coincide with those of Moscow, the communists could control the West simply by advocating policies the reverse of those the Kremlin really desires. The Labour-Progressive (communist) party of Canada has approved Mr. Conn Smythe's proposal that the Toronto Maple Leafs play exhibition games in Russia. Is Mr. Smythe therefore to withdraw his offer, whatever its intrinsic merits? Of course not. On the second point, Korea Republic's attitude would leave little recourse except to settle international differences by violence. If recognition is to be withheld from Peiping because of disapproval of China's rulers, then how is business to be done with the Chinese nation? Negotiations could not for long be held, or bargains struck, or a settlement reached, if normal diplomatic intercourse is forever cut off. The South Korean regime is not universally approved in the
(Mr. Ellis.]
West, owing to President Syngman Rhee's endeavours to suppress opposition and establish a brutal police state. But his is the only government that exercises effective control over South Korea, and the West must recognize it. Much the same rule applies to China.
These are precisely the things we of the C.C.F. have been saying. The British government has said much the same thing, and has taken the same point of view. I believe that once and for all we should end these innuendoes and charges against people in this country who favour the recognition of the Peking government as though there was something insidious about it. I believe the record speaks for itself in that respect.
Along with the recognition of China there must, of course, go the question of China's entry into the United Nations. Much has been said by one or two hon. members about the possibility that China upon being recognized would become a member of the United Nations. The attitude some people have toward the United Nations is rather strange to say the least. Some people seem to believe that the United Nations is a sort of little social gathering in which all good people can be members, and all people we do not like can be kept out. In this regard I was very interested to read a report of a speech made by Sir Gladwyn Jebb in addressing the Pilgrims in London recently as reported in the Western Producer of March 25, under the heading "Jebb Urges Admission of Red China to U.N. Seat".
Sir Gladwyn Jebb, who was until recently the British representative at the UN, and who is now ambassador-designate to France, urged the United States to accept the principle of making the United Nations a true world forum in which peace can be won, and he warned:
"We are just not going to defeat communism by physical means, necessary though it may be to defend ourselves and the whole free world by such methods."
Another world war will not eliminate communism but will be more likely to extend it universally, perhaps under another name, he asserted.
Jebb commented that some Americans misconceive membership in the United Nations as a sort of prize for being a good boy, an attitude which he described as ignoring the world situation in which many governments "are not the sort of which we could possibly approve." "Somehow or other," he declared, "we have got to learn how to get on in this world with governments we dislike, and whose disappearance we should be the first to applaud if it could be accomplished by means other than war."
These are sentiments with which, I am certain, every member of the C.C.F. group would wholeheartedly agree.
The United Nations should be a true world forum. It is rather difficult to understand the nature of the criticism of the United

Nations from time to time. It is rather difficult to understand the point of view expressed by some members that you will weaken the United Nations by admitting the Peking government to membership when one realizes that if the United Nations is going to be a true world forum then all the major antagonists of the world should be brought together in order that the vital issues of the day may be discussed. Conversely, we have views such as those of the Social Credit group who would insist on the expulsion of the U.S.S.R. from the United Nations. Would that strengthen the United Nations? It depends entirely on what one's impression of the United Nations is.
If the United Nations is going to do the task for which it was created, apart from the work of the specialized agencies which of course are being carried on from day to day; if it is going to do a major job, then the United Nations is going to have to provide the machinery whereby the various antagonistic elements in the world may be brought together in order that common decisions may be arrived at. So far as the entry of China into the United Nations is concerned, the suggestion is made that it will double our difficulties and will increase obstructionist tactics. I would remind hon. members that I believe in every vote that has been taken in the general assembly of the United Nations the Russian bloc has usually been defeated by about eight to one, nine to one or ten to one. The veto power is already exercised by the Moscow government, and I think there would be very little change in that respect if the communist government of China also exercised that power.
But I do want to emphasize the point that we have got to clear the air with respect to what we consider the main job of the United Nations to be. We must realize, as Sir Gladwyn Jebb has pointed out, that we must make the United Nations a true world forum in which we will get all divergent points of view. There are some who say that we could get things done a lot better if the obstructionists were not there. I suppose some of the Liberals across the way might argue that too much time is spent on debate and that they would get the work of the house done much quicker if they got rid of the opposition. That is the same type of logic as to argue that the work of the United Nations would be facilitated by the expulsion of all those who might disagree with the majority decision. It is up to the majority to persuade the others.
Think of a United Nations in which you only have those who agree and all those who
External Affairs
disagree are expelled. It is like having a prize fight with only one boxer in the ring. It is difficult to conceive of the type of reasoning that would lead a person to advocate either the denial of entry of China to the United Nations or the expulsion of the U.S.S.R. from that body.
We are much concerned at the present moment with the coming Geneva conference. Something has been said about the apparent failure of the Berlin conference, but if the Berlin conference brought about the Geneva conference perhaps that is one positive accomplishment of that meeting. There are two attitudes of mind that may prevail among the delegates who go to Geneva. There may be those who will go with closed minds determined that under no circumstances will they yield on any point. Again, there are others who would be prepared to go to the conference and seek any area upon which some measure of agreement might be reached, no matter how small that area might be. I think we must realize that there are some who go to international conferences with closed minds.
I want to draw the attention of the house to a statement made recently by Representative Judd who is chairman of the House of Representatives foreign affairs subcommittee. His words are reported in an Associated Press dispatch from Washington which appeared in the Gazette of March 28. The report reads in part as follows:
Judd said any truce sought by the allies, rather than the communists, would be "the first step toward the war we are trying to avoid. If the communists come to us with evidence of good faith to negotiate, rather than with another trick or a trap, the United States is always willing to negotiate", he said. But Judd declared a genuine truce would be possible at Geneva only if "they (the communists) ceased being communists."
I think no comment is needed on that statement. It speaks for itself. The attitude of Canada at this conference is something that concerns us at the present moment. We have heard a number of speeches during the course of this debate by members who suggest almost the same kind of closed mind with respect to this conference. The statement was made: After all, what if they do promise to desist from further acts of aggression? We will not believe them anyway. Of course if we are going to take that attitude before the conference opens then we cannot blame anyone but ourselves if we find that no agreement at all comes out of the conference.
But there is one point in this connection that was dealt with very effectively by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Phil-pott). It is the matter of the red herring

External Affairs
involved in the use of the word "appeasement" and the reference to Munich in connection with present-day conferences. I find it difficult to understand how a student of world history who has taken the trouble to study the events leading up to the Munich conference and the events of the conference itself can possibly draw any parallel between Munich and conferences held under international auspices at the present time. The Munich conference was a conference to which were invited people who were virtually certain to agree on a particular course, and those who were likely to disagree were not invited. For example, Czechoslovakia, the country most concerned, simply was not invited to the conference because Czechoslovakia quite naturally would have taken great exception to the discussions that were going on at that time. Therefore I do not think anyone should seek at this time to use the Munich conference or the term "appeasement" as a red herring to try to throw difficulties in the way of those who would seek to bring about some small measure of understanding in the world today.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) dealt with an extremely important subject this afternoon. I am glad he did so because it absolves me from the necessity of saying some of the things I wished to say. I think it is an extremely important matter. If the new bomb is exploded next month we may be spared any disastrous consequences, but where is it going to end? Is there going to be further testing of still more powerful bombs? Where is the line going to be drawn? It has to be drawn somewhere, and I think we should give the most serious consideration to the remarks made this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I do not wonder that he is concerned.
I noticed that last week the Vancouver Province published on its front page a map showing the danger area of a hydrogen bomb explosion such as the one to be exploded next month. The area on the map covered a radius of 450 miles. It extended almost as far north as Prince Rupert, and as far northeast as Edson, Alberta. It included the city of Calgary and the outskirts of Lethbridge and extended south to Missoula, Montana, and to an area just north of Grants Pass. It included the cities of Spokane, Seattle, Portland, Victoria and most of the settled areas of British Columbia. Is it any wonder that the hon. member, representing as he does a Pacific coast constituency, should have risen in his place this afternoon and have made the very valuable contribution he made to the debate? It is the enormous effects of such bombs that brought the Vancouver Province to publish an editorial on the matter. I just want to

draw your attention to this editorial because I think it sums up the situation in much the same terms as the Secretary of State for External Affairs used in his address just last Sunday to a group of young people in the city of Ottawa. In dealing with the threat of atomic war or the hydrogen bomb, the Vancouver Province of March 27, 1954 had this to say in part:
It can only be done by driving home the basic fact that no one will win an atomic war. The scattered, despairing fragments of the human race able to survive such a holocaust would not be very interested in the social theories of Karl Marx or anyone else.
The atom bomb has dwarfed all social theories. When and if the next atomic bomb is dropped as an act of war our ideologies, legal systems, ideas of government, learning, culture, will on that day be rendered mere bagsful of nonsense.
Nothing of value anywhere will survive an atomic war.
With this background, Mr. Speaker, I want to urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see to it that the Canadian delegation at Geneva does everything within its power to seek at least small areas upon which there can be some degree of understanding and agreement. What is the alternative? The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), the leader of our movement, when speaking in this debate last Thursday pointed out the alternatives which face the world today. He stated the world had a choice of co-existence, if I may use that term, or we might seek to destroy them and they might seek to destroy us. Now, that is the choice before the world today, and I wonder where Canada will stand on this matter.
With this background in mind, I urge the government to take advantage of every possible opportunity to negotiate to come to even a slight degree of understanding on some of the issues that face the world today. Without such an understanding the world will continue to face the perpetual threat of destruction by a third world war.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I advise hon.
members that if the minister speaks now, he will conclude the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This debate that is now coming to an end, Mr. Speaker, and the conclusion of which will make it possible to set up the committee on external affairs where these and many other subjects might be discussed further, has ranged far and wide over the world. I do not believe any of us should complain about that because we have learned from the events of the last forty or fifty years that when international

relations break down our men have to range far and wide over the world, from Germany to Korea, in the defence of peace.
In the course of the discussion we have made excursions into the fields of history, philosophy, religion, and almost on occasion metaphysics. We have gone as far back as 8000 B.C. and spent a good deal of time looking at what is going to happen in April, 1954, at Geneva. During the course of the debate a great many questions have been raised, and a great deal of advice has been given to the government as to how to deal with them. As the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) said this afternoon, questions have been hurled at me. On the government's side, we should certainly do nothing but welcome that because advice is helpful, especially when it is good advice.
At times, however, some of the advice- this I suppose is inevitable-that has been given to us has been contradictory in character, especially on the subject of recognition of the Peking government in China. As I understand it from the speeches that have been given, the members of the Progressive Conservative party are afraid that we will recognize that government, and the members of the C.C.F. are worried that we will not. Naturally, therefore, the advice that has been given on that point has been slightly contradictory. I am not quite certain of the position of the official opposition in the matter, apart from the advice they have given as to what ours should be. I think in relation to recognition, and I will come back to this later, the position of the official opposition might be summed up in the words of a song, I think by Gilbert and Sullivan, "Never-well, hardly ever."
The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), and I think one or two other hon. members on the other side, suggested that we had been derelict in our responsibility on this side because neither the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) nor myself had said anything about the commonwealth of nations. I feel the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) dealt with that matter very effectively yesterday when he said that the Prime Minister had been giving evidence by deed and not only by word of his feeling for the commonwealth of nations which in its new form is very different from the old British Empire and has demonstrated once again the genius of the people composing it for political improvisation, if I may put it that way, and for service to the world.
The hon. member for Greenwood talked about the commonwealth of nations as a third centre of power and hoped that along that line its new usefulness might develop. With
External Affairs
all respect to him, I do not see the new commonwealth in that light, either politically or legally, because it is unrealistic, if I may use the word, to talk about a commonwealth composed of nations such as India on the one hand, South Africa on the other and the United Kingdom and the rest of us as a centre of power. There could be no single decision, as I see it, which would bring that power into action. It is not, therefore, a centre of power in the sense that the United States or the U.S.S.R. is. But it is a centre of cooperation and understanding. In that respect it is, and will continue I am sure, to render a very valuable service.
I hope that this centre of understanding and co-operation will not develop as a kind of third force-I have said this before- somewhere between the United States and the U.S.S.R. There are only two forces in the world today, or should be; those forces which are fighting for peace and good international relations and those that are on the opposite side of that issue.
I feel that I should say a few words right at the beginning about the speech made the other evening by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). He accused me softly last Friday of indulging in semantic subtleties. Well, there was nothing subtle about some of his statements. They were clear; but, as I see it, they were clearly wrong; they were directed as we remember for the most part to the United States and to the conduct of the western foreign ministers at Berlin. And I am not suggesting that the hon. member is anything like a fellow traveller, or a member of any fellow-travelling group when I criticize his stand on this matter.
He was pretty strong in his criticism of the western proposals at Berlin for the European defence community for the unification of Germany as obviously unacceptable to the Soviet union and, as he called it, the hasty western rejection of Mr. Molotov's proposals for European security.
What was wrong with these western proposals for the unification of Germany, based as they were upon the principle, which surely we must all accept, of free elections and the formation of a united German government which, once it was formed by free elections, would have full power to contract out of the European defence community if it desired to do so, if it happened to be in?
It seems to me to be most unfair, indeed absurd, to talk about a proposal of that kind, in contrast to the Soviet proposal on the same subject, as sabotaging the Berlin conference. In so far as Mr. Molotov's plan for European security was concerned, that was introduced

External Affairs
at the conference in Berlin on February 10. It was discussed by the foreign ministers at three meetings; and in spite of their efforts they failed to clarify some of its points, especially that of its relationship to NATO. Mr. Molotov refused to co-operate in that regard, but it became pretty clear before the conference ended that the acceptance of this scheme for European security would have meant the abandonment of NATO and its replacement, for European states, by a collective security system which would have included all of eastern European communist states, and the U.S.S.R. itself-which is more Asian than European-and would have excluded the United States and Canada and, indeed, the communist government in China. However that nation-and the U.S.A.-would have been permitted to attend the meetings of such a system as observers.
I think after the consideration which was given, and after their inability to get the clarification they desired, the western foreign ministers were entitled to claim that there was no basis for European peace or unity or security to be found in that particular proposal.
In a more general way the hon. member for Nanaimo stated his views, and I am quoting:
The western powers have been led to consort with all the most disreputable and reactionary elements in Europe to the destruction of the element in that society which might have built a better world in the heart of Europe.
Well, who are these "disreputable" elements? Are they the followers of Moscow, such as Togliatti, Duclos, Thorez, Field Marshal von Paulus, Grotewohl and Ulbricht? No, Mr. Speaker, they are, according to the hon. member, de Gasperi, Adenauer, Ernst Reuter, Robert Schuman, Georges Bidault or Jules Moch.
Later in his statement the hon. member criticized our policy at the United Nations, as he had every right to do. Then he ended up that phase of his remarks with these words:
We have left the other nations-
That is, Canada has done this.
-who are not nearly as well equipped as we are-
He did not specify any particular nation.

to stand up for principles of honesty and decency in the world.
And at another point he said:
I think on the most charitable basis we can only say that it has been a somewhat shabby role.
Well, I suggest that our participation in international affairs in recent years is not considered by most Canadians, or in fact by most countries, as justifying its characterization as a shabby role. We have of course

made mistakes, and I have no doubt we will continue to make some. But I hope we will never act in such a way that we can legitimately be charged with being shabby in respect of our international responsibilities.
And the hon. member ended up by saying that because of our deficiency in this regard many Canadians are slightly afraid and ashamed of being Canadians. Well, I will have to leave him to that company of Canadians who are slightly ashamed of being Canadians, and I do not think he will find too much companionship there.
Now, there has been a good deal of discussion in this debate about the European defence community, what it stands for and what our relationship to it should be. I did say in introducing this resolution that we supported the European defence community, and then I added the words "or something like it". The hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Eglinton both asked me what I meant by "or something like it". What are the alternatives?
Well, by "or something like it" I had in mind possibly some kind of amendment by protocol for consideration if the original agreement is not satisfactorily effected. And as for alternatives, I would suggest to the hon. member for Prince Albert that if he reads Hansard at page 1584, when I spoke on January 29, he will find that I outlined there the five possible alternatives to the existing international defence community now under consideration.
A good many members in the debate have expressed doubts and uneasiness about the acceptance and the putting into effect of the European defence community. I can understand that uneasiness, because I share it. And if we share it in this house we can certainly understand how citizens of countries close to Germany who have seen so much of invasion in recent years must feel about it. But while we may understand that feeling, still we must ask ourselves, as I have tried to ask myself: What is the alternative? While arguing the point of view that there must be something dangerous in the position, it would surely be wise to follow it up by suggesting a more satisfactory alternative. From my own study 1 do not think that there is a more satisfactory alternative, unless all those who are now discussing the present arrangement should get together and agree upon changes to it.
Appeals have been made to history in this connection. Well, I draw-and I am sure other hon. members also draw-other lessons from history which bear on the matter. I stated on January 29 that one method of

controlling 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 an alliance of that kind effective in preventing war, even if it may have been effective in winning war. And so, with the history of 1914 and 1939 very much in mind, plans for a European defence community have been drawn up in order to bring Germany into an alliance which would give scope for her energy and talents but which would also include safeguards against uncontrolled military expansion.
The EDC treaty, with which NATO would be associated, has provided safeguards which have already been explained in detail in this house. If we have not faith in those safeguards, then we have no reason to have faith in any other conditions imposed by human authority.
Nor do I think we have ground for faith in our ability to control Germany rearmament without this kind of collective organization. Nor do I think we should have much confidence, with the experience of the years between the wars and now, in our resolve, let alone our ability, to keep Germany neutral and disarmed. We have tried that before and it has worked for a few years, but the end result has certainly not made for peace. Therefore I do feel-and I repeat this feeling which I spoke about earlier and indeed as late as January 29-that the best of all alternatives now before us-indeed it is the only one officially now before us-is the European defence community.
The hon. member for Eglinton and one or two other hon. gentlemen have talked about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the hon. member for Eglinton asked a specific question in this regard, whether, commenting on the press dispatch of an interview between the Prime Minister and General Gruenther in Paris, we had accepted recently any new commitments in regard to NATO forces. Notwithstanding any interpretation that might have been given to that particular press statement, which was inaccurate in this respect, we have not accepted any commitments in regard to NATO which have not already been made clear to the house.
The hon. member for Peace River brought up an important question in this regard when he wanted to know the effect, if any- and he was worried about this-of such an arrangement as that which has been entered into between Turkey and Pakistan on our commitments under NATO. It is true that Turkey and Pakistan have worked out a bilateral defence arrangement and I am sure
External Affairs
it will make its own contribution to peace and security in that area. But that does not add to our commitments merely because one of the two principals to that arrangement is a NATO member; because our obligation under NATO is to come to the help of, or at least to consider an attack on the metropolitan area of a member state as an attack on ourselves. Any action taken as a result of an outside agreement which brought one NATO country into action because of its obligation to another country that was not a member of NATO would not, as I understand it, involve our NATO commitment.
Then, in respect of NATO, there has been a good deal of talk about our ability to do more in implementing article 2. All I can say is that I realize that this has been a very slow and complicated and at times disappointing process. As I have already said before, in recent years we have subordinated the implementation of the non-defence aspects of NATO generally to the necessity for building up our defensive strength against a threat which seemed very dangerous at the time and remains dangerous. But we are doing something. Every time we meet at Paris we do something more to carry out the spirit of article 2, which is not concerned only with economic co-operation, but also with political co-operation generally; and in the meeting of the NATO council which will take place in a few weeks, on April 23, in Paris, as I think I said the other day, we have only one item on our agenda, namely, the exchange of views on the international political situation. That in itself, the fact that we can meet and talk about these things regularly, frankly and fully, does I think help to bring about this closer political integration, if I may use that word, which we had in mind when we signed the NATO agreement.
Having used the word "integration", I should refer to a question raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who asked for some clarification of the statement made by the Prime Minister at Bonn, which statement he felt went beyond anything that had previously been uttered in this house in regard to our international collective developments. On February 10, I think it was, at Bonn the Prime Minister said this:
It has become increasingly clear, I think, to all members of NATO and to those many countries who are associated with us throughout the free world that our very survival and our continued development in freedom and in peace depends upon our ability to look beyond national barriers and to make them somewhat less artificial and more satisfactory.

External Affairs
The Prime Minister added:
We believe the proper solution to the economic, cultural and spiritual betterment of all free peoples is to be found in an ever closer integration of their activities and in a greater sharing of their endeavours. More particularly, many of us believe the peoples living about the great basin of the Atlantic ocean might well seek the solution to their problem of economic betterment, political stability and self-defence in this closer integration of their national resources and of their machinery of government.
The Prime Minister of course had in mind when he made that statement-and I think it is one to which none of us would want to take exception-that the hope of the world today, especially the hope of the Atlantic world, and especially under the circumstances of today, must lie mainly in closer and closer co-operation and closer and closer relationship between governments and the agencies of government. In saying that he did not, I suggest, go so far as-certainly not any farther than-Mr. Mackenzie King did in this house on December 17, 1945, when he said-and these words might well be remembered by the hon. gentleman:
The more deeply one ponders the problems with which our world is confronted, in the light-"the terrible light," as Mr. Attlee said-of the implications of the development of atomic energy,-
I do not know what he would have said if he had been speaking today. I continue: -the harder it is to see a solution in anything short of some surrender of national sovereignty.
Mr. King went on:
With a limited surrender of national sovereignty, there must be instituted some form of world government restricted, at least at the outset, to matters pertaining to the prevention of war, and the maintenance of international security.
I think the lesson of the events of the last two or three days drives home that feeling that there is no safety for us, there is no security for us except in closer and closer international co-operation and more effective international arrangements to protect national security. And in bringing this about-this had been said in other parliaments than ours -there must be some relinquishment of national sovereignty, because the world is too small for jealous competing sovereignties in the circumstances of today. This, as a matter of fact, is not in one sense giving up national sovereignty at all. It consists, as Mr. Wendell Willkie used to say, of making national sovereignty work for us in the interests of national security.
A good many questions were asked about atomic energy matters. The hon. member for Prince Albert asked whether we had any international obligations at the present time with regard to extending present knowledge of atomic energy along the lines of making industry a partner of this development. The

answer to that question is no, we have not. He also asked questions relating to the proposed international agency which I had mentioned in my earlier statement. In fact he repeated to me some of the questions I had myself asked in that statement. At this stage I regret that I cannot do more than refer to the proposals themselves made by President Eisenhower when he pointed out that it was expected-and we share this expectation-that the proposed international agency, which is now under discussion, would be set up under the aegis of the United Nations. He also proposed that the governments principally involved-and that would include Canada-should, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence, make contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to the international agency, and he added that ratio of contributions, procedures and other details would properly be within the scope of private conversations. Those private conversations are now going on.
It seems to me that at this stage it would be unwise for any of us to make public statements as to what we think can best be done to implement this general proposal. We have been in close touch with the United Kingdom government as well as the United States government on this matter. The United States government indeed is acting at the present time, as I said the other day, bilaterally with the U.S.S.R. and has put certain proposals to the government in Moscow. Those proposals have not been made public. They go into this matter in somewhat more detail than I have been able to do; but until we get the first reaction of Moscow to those proposals I think it would be unwise and indeed inappropriate for me to say anything more about the details of this matter than I have already said.
I appreciate, as must all hon. members, the uneasiness which has been reflected in this house over recent atomic developments. Yet I cannot help adding that I would be far more worried if those awful explorations into the science and the chemistry of destruction were exclusively in the hands of those whom we have cause to fear rather than in the hands of those who we know will not use them for any aggressive warlike purpose. Having said that, however, we cannot refrain from asking ourselves this question: Where are we going in this matter? As reported at page 3342 of Hansard, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said:
The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government should make immediate representations to the United States, urging the United States not to undertake these experiments in the Pacific ocean.

As I indicated, I think it was yesterday, in the house, we have been in touch with United States authorities about the results of the recent explosion and have endeavoured to obtain information about the plans for subsequent explosions. We know-and our information in the last few days reinforces our knowledge-that those who have a special responsibility in this matter on our side in Washington share the anxiety of all people of good will at the horrible potentialities of the forces now being developed, and they are as anxious as we are to remove those anxieties. At this moment I can only repeat, as expressing my own feelings, what Sir Winston Churchill said yesterday in the House of Commons in London:
... I am sure that those responsible for conducting these tests will continue to take the most rigorous precautions to minimize the risks involved.
Our interest in this matter has already been expressed in Washington, as no doubt has the interest of other governments, and quite understandably so. But the best way to remove dangers in this field, as in other fields, and the best way to prevent any possible use of those weapons, is to prevent war. I do not desire to use language which is too shrill or excitable, but I cannot help feeling -as other hon. members have felt and have so expressed themselves-almost horror at the magnitude of the destructive forces now being made available for human use. When we talk about things like this it is customary to say that we must reduce the particular subject to its proper perspective. However far you reduce this matter to perspective, the perspective remains horrible.
I would go further, and this is as far as I can go at this time in answer to the impassioned and sincere appeal of my friend the hon. member for Vancouver East. I would agree that all governments concerned-and that includes the Canadian government- should, if I may use the expression, take a new look at United Nations international efforts in this field of the prevention of the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes. The clouds that have arisen eighteen or nineteen miles above that Pacific atoll; the deep and jagged cave that was blown into the bed of the Pacific ocean; and the men who, miles away, suffered merely by contact with the effects of the explosion; all these things surely impose on all of us, and no doubt especially on those of us who have some official responsibility, the obligation to take some kind of action, if one can find it, to harness these forces for constructive ends.
I agree that, in the light of what has happened, we must approach this problem- all of us; all governments-with a greater sense of urgency than possibly we have been 83276-224
External Affairs
showing in recent months. That requires, of course, action at the United Nations or at least international action. It may mean that we should re-examine our own attitude towards the question of international ownership of fissionable material as essential to a solution. But it also emphasizes the desirability, indeed the necessity, of bringing about some form of genuine international control and international inspection, without which anxieties in this matter will not be removed.
I now pass on to some other subjects which have arisen in the course of the debate and move from this question of atomic energy to the Pacific. More than one speaker in this debate has suggested that it should be the aim of our policy in the free world to do everything possible to separate the communist satellites from the U.S.S.R. The leader of the official opposition, speaking on Yugoslavia, said, as reported on page 3377 of Hansard:
... it is my hope that under the influence of the outside world Yugoslavia may gradually emerge from communism into a better form of government that will bring freedom to its people.
Then he added that this is only possible once the people are separated from Moscow.
I think we can all agree with that statement in principle, but it is not always so easy to find the proper policy to encourage that separation. Right Hon. Anthony Eden, in the article which my hon. friend quoted from the Daily Telegraph of London, dated January 20, 1950, said as follows:
Independent nationalist communism (in China) is certainly possible later-but we should be unwise to count on it.
I agree with that statement and I agree further that we should be unwise to base our policy on its happening. Nevertheless, we should take advantage of any opportunity that may present itself to bring that sort of thing about. One such opportunity has been put forward in some quarters as existing at this time, in increasing importance, namely in encouraging and developing trade between the east and the west. The other night, as reported at page 3380 of Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition said this:
. . . we do not need to sell our principles for a few dollars' worth of trade.
That is right, Mr. Speaker, we do not need to do that; and so far as this government is concerned, I am sure we do not intend to do so. It is true, however, that there are efforts now being made by the U.S.S.R. and communist governments to increase such trade. Why such efforts are being made at this time must of course be a matter for speculation, but one can be sure they contain much political and propaganda

External Affairs
content. I believe we can also be pretty sure that these efforts are not designed to help us. But it is still not impossible that some countries of the free world would be assisted by an increase in east-west trade, that their economic strength would be made greater by that trade, and that that in turn - would strengthen their defensive capacity.
The President of the United States himself as recently as yesterday, in his message to congress, had something to say about this. He said:
Curtailment of our aid programs will increase the pressures for resumption of such trade. A greater exchange of peaceful goods between east and west so far as it can be achieved without jeopardizing national security, and subject to our embargo on communist China and North Korea, should not cause us undue concern.
So far as trade in strategic goods is concerned, no question arises because that is prohibited, and that prohibition will remain as long as circumstances remain as they are at present. But we should do our best to agree as to what is to be included on that list. So far as the proposals for trade in non-strategic goods are concerned, I suggest that each one of these can be considered on its merit, and that consideration will have to include, of course, our experiences in the past, to which allusion was made the other evening, and in regard to the risk of relying on such trade, and the fact that we should not deceive ourselves that we are likely to find in the Soviet union, for example, any considerable market at any time for Canadian agricultural products.
It is true that Soviet agricultural policy has, if not collapsed, at least been very disappointing to those who have been responsible for it, and it is true, according to our information, that there are shortages of agricultural products in the U.S.S.R. But I would remind the house that in the twenties, at a time when there was famine in Russia, the Soviet union of that day did not hesitate to export agricultural products to obtain the currency which they needed for their own industrialization. I believe we would be making an optimistic mistake if we expected the Soviet union to be a lucrative market for Canadian exports of that kind.
There is a paragraph, Mr. Speaker, from the Randall report which was submitted to congress the other day on the question of east-west trade, which I think is worth reading. That report contains this paragraph:
It may well be, moreover, that more trade in goods for peaceful purposes would in itself serve to penetrate the iron curtain and advance the day when normal relationships with the peoples of eastern Europe may be resumed.

Sir Winston Churchill on February 25 last put this idea in somewhat more positive and indeed more optimistic terms when he said in London:
The more the two great divisions of the world mingle in healthy and fertile activities of commerce, the greater is the counterpoise to purely military calculations. Other thoughts take up their place in the minds of men. Friendly infiltration can do nothing but good. We have no reason to fear it, and if communist Russia does not fear it, that in itself is a good sign.
I do not know if our optimism would go as far as that, but I think we will all agree that this problem of trade with the U.S.S.R. is a complex one except in so far as trade in strategic goods is concerned; and that proposals to this end should be considered by the government from the point of view of our own national interest which, in the case of the countries of the free world coalition, cannot be divorced from the collective interests of us all.
There were some other questions on Asia and the Pacific raised in the course of this debate. It was pointed out by more than one speaker that we should do what we can as a government and as a country to prevent or assist in the prevention of further aggressive communist conquests in that part of the world.
Yesterday the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) asked me whether we would support the speech made in New York the night before last by the United States Secretary of State in respect of Indo-China. The hon. member quoted from that speech and I will put that quotation on the record a little more. On that occasion Mr. Dulles said:
Under all the circumstances it seems desirable to clarify further the United States position.
Under the conditions today, the imposition on southeast Asia of the political system of communist Russia and its Chinese communist ally, by whatever means, would be a grave threat to the whole free community. The United States feels that that possibility should not be passively accepted, but should be met by united action. This might involve serious risks. But these risks are far less than those that will face us a few years from now, if we dare not be resolute today.
That, of course, is a very important statement. As a government and as a parliament we should study it and find out what is involved in it before we are asked to commit ourselves either to unreserved support, or indeed to criticism of it. But I suggest this is not the time when we should be asked to line up behind it, ahead of it or against it, especially until we find out what is meant by the very important words "united action". We are, of course, taking steps to secure an analysis and explanation of what was meant by that particular statement.

I am sure we all agree there is a real danger in the extension at the present time of communist aggression in Indo-China.
There is also a danger of not supporting the existing Asian democracies as an obstacle to the extension of communism in Asia, about which so many fears have rightly been expressed. I believe that the basis of Asian security today is not only collective action against communist aggression of the kind that has been indicated, but the strengthening of Asian democracies and giving them all the support we possibly can.


Mr. Drew:: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) a question in direct relation to the point he has just made. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs had an opportunity to consider the explanation given today by President Eisenhower of that very quotation to which the minister has just referred?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I read a press account of President Eisenhower's press conference, but I would suggest that before we take any stand on this matter, if any stand is required as regards this statement of United States policy, we should be quite sure we know in our minds the meaning of what Mr. Dulles said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Also the meaning of the clarification.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra in his speech yesterday once again brought to my attention the importance of Pacific security arrangements and the necessity for Canada participating in collective security arrangements in that region. The hon. member complained that I had pooh-poohed the importance of this matter in the past and did not seem to take it very seriously. I would like to refresh his memory for a moment, Mr. Speaker, by recalling debates we have had in this house on this very matter, and especially last February when I went with great detail into the reasons why at this time Canada's accession to membership in any of these Pacific security arrangements was not practical.
Since the last statement I made on this subject the ANZUS council has had another meeting, of which my hon. friend is no doubt aware, in Washington on the 9th and 10th of September last year, and the communique issued at the end of that council meeting included the following statement:
The council-
That is the ANZUS council.
-affirmed its readiness to consider any measure which would strengthen the defence of the area.
83276-224J
External Affairs
The Pacific area.
It unanimously-
That includes Australia and New Zealand.
-concluded, however, that to attempt to enlarge its membership would not contribute directly and materially to this end.
Soon after the council concluded its meeting Mr. Dulles had the following to say by way of comment on this point:
It is, however, unlikely that any one of these existing treaties-
The Pacific treaties.
-could itself be the framework for such development.
That is, a general security pact in the Pacific.
Indeed, before there can be much useful development by way of multilateral treaties there is need for the development, within the Pacific area, of a greater measure of international good will and a greater unity of purpose.
I suggest that the hon. member is not fair to the government when he suggests that we show no interest in this matter or are defaulting on our obligations to participate in collective security arrangements in the Pacific. Surely we have given evidence more than once of our interest in Pacific security which, as a matter of fact, is not separable from Atlantic security. But for us to try to barge our way into the ANZUS arrangement or any other Pacific security arrangement at this time would not be very good diplomacy in the face of the information that has been conveyed to us and, indeed, in the face of the efforts of the United Kingdom, whose efforts to join this organization have not been very successful. In that regard I might point out that United Kingdom interest in this matter is at least as great as ours because it has Asian and Pacific territory. Therefore I commend to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra this extract from Sir Winston Churchill's statement in the House of Commons yesterday when he was being pressed to make representations to the United States on another matter which he did not think would be successful:
Blunt refusals are very serious things. We do not in diplomacy, and even in relations with the most friendly and kindred allies, lead up to anything that may finish in a blunt refusal.
I hope my hon. friend will take my assurance that if we have any reason to believe that we would get anything but a blunt refusal in the expression of our interest in further Pacific security arrangements we would be glad to investigate the matter further.

External Affairs


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question? Has he explored the possibility of Canada becoming a party to the ANZUS treaty?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, we have, in Washington, as to the views of the United States government, and in Australia, as to the views of the Australian government, concerning the extension of the ANZUS treaty to include other states. I should think the statements I have just put on the record from the communique of the council and from Mr. Dulles would give the hon. member a clear-cut answer to any such explorations.


Howard Charles Green: Has the minister any alternative type of agreement to suggest?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, we are in continuous consultation with our friends in Washington and other places on this matter. The hon. member mentioned yesterday that Senator Knowland had recently proposed further discussions with respect to the broadening of these security arrangements. We were interested in that, and if the United States administration felt that would be a useful and wise thing to do at this time and we were invited, together with other countries, to participate in any discussions which were designed to bring about greater security in the Pacific, naturally we would give any such invitation the most sympathetic consideration. I cannot go any further than that now, nor do I think I should be asked to do so.
I come now to a subject that, while not the most important, has been the one raised most often in this debate, the question of the recognition of the communist government in China. I should like to say a few words on that subject to clear up the position of the government, if it needs clearing. Legal recognition is, as has already been pointed out in this debate, something you give for your own national advantage in your own national interest, which includes as the most important objective of all, maintaining and strengthening the peace. If, as has been pointed out this afternoon, recognition meant giving approval, if it were only a question of moral judgment, we should today, I suggest, have no diplomatic contact with communist countries-except the communist country of Yugoslavia which is in a very different category- in our own capital or at the United Nations. On this point of recognition Mr. Dulles, speaking the day before yesterday in New York, said:
Generally, it Is useful that there should be diplomatic intercourse between those who exercise de facto governmental authority and it is well established that recognition does not imply moral approval.

"Does not imply moral approval", he said. He went on:
President Monroe, in his famous message to congress, denounced the expansionist and despotic system of czarist Russia and its allies. But he said that it would nevertheless be our policy "to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us." That has indeed been the general United States policy, and I believe that it is a sound general policy. However, where it does not serve our interests we are free to vary from it.
The Leader of the Opposition, speaking the other day on this point, said that recognition also means admission to the United Nations. Here is what he said:
Do not let the Secretary of State for External Affairs or anyone else in the house suggest it can be otherwise.
Yet that is exactly what the hon. gentleman himself suggested on January 29, as found at page 1621 of Hansard. He said:
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.
I suggest that the hon. gentleman was right on at least one of those occasions. But I do not think it matters very much whether or not it means entry into the United Nations. It is more of an academic question than otherwise at the moment. There are a good many members of the United Nations today who have recognized communist China and have not voted for her admission into the United Nations when that subject has come up. There are other states which have been recognized by practically every government in the world and are not members of the United Nations.
The Leader of the Opposition also said that he was "against recognition under present conditions and in the circumstances of today." That, Mr. Speaker, is exactly the position of the government and I think it explains what I meant when I said in Chicago that we were a little more careful in our attitude and, as I thought, more realistic than they were over there. We do not say, as has been said elsewhere, that we will "never" recognize the government now in authority in China. We have said that if conditions and circumstances change we will have another look at the matter. Surely that is only common sense. For as the Leader of the Opposition said, as found at page 3381 of Hansard:
No one can say that anything is forever in this very uncertain world.

But then the Leader of the Opposition added that in my statement reported from Windsor I went further than that, and I suggest that I did not. He quoted the words attributed to me in a Canadian Press dispatch, and I am not quarrelling with its accuracy a bit. These were the words:
If Red China adopts a conciliatory attitude at the Geneva conference, Canada might take a new look at this problem.
Then, I added, "Remember that conference is to be about Korea."
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) then referred to what a reporter in Windsor called a summary of further observations and from this summary he built up the thesis that we were contemplating some kind of early recognition or some kind of deal at Geneva -I use that word not in any unparliamentary sense-which might bring about recognition. This summary, the words of which the Leader of the Opposition, as reported on page 3374 of Hansard for March 26, 1954, were mistakenly attributed to me-and I know that was accidental-reports me as having said:
If the Reds are willing to give assurances that their aggression in Korea is a thing of the past and that they are ready to take an honest line in international affairs, he said, Canada must consider following Great Britain's lead in recognizing the Peking regime.
Well that summary, as summaries often do, gave a wrong impression if interpreted to mean that all the Peking government has to do at Geneva is to say, "We are sorry; we will be a respectable government in the future", and then we will recognize them. My own recollection, based on the notes I had, gives a somewhat different picture than the summary. I believe, however, that one indication of changed circumstances which would bring about, as I see it, another look by the government at this matter, would be an assurance, not merely by words, that the Chinese communist forces were willing to withdraw from Korea and agree to a peace settlement in Korea in accordance with the principles laid down by the United Nations. The end of aggression in Indo-China would be another such indication.
The Leader of the Opposition was very sceptical, and I am not quarrelling with him on this, about the value of any assurances from communists. After some experience in the matter I am inclined to agree that verbal or written assurances from that quarter are very often worthless. But, Mr. Speaker, I had in mind the kind of assurance that the member for Prince Albert was no doubt talking about when he gave the government this
External Affairs
advice in referring to the Geneva conference. I am quoting from page 3340 of Hansard for March 25, 1954:
I think Canadians will expect that the minister at the Geneva conference . . . will demand the fullest assurances that aggression will be banished by it.
It is that kind of assurance that might make it possible for us to have a new look at this question.
Meanwhile the fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to deal with and to negotiate with this Chinese government at Geneva at a political conference. In doing so we are merely recognizing the facts of the present situation. Mr. Eden was quoted by the Leader of the Opposition the other day as saying that the decision to recognize communist China is eventually inescapable. I will not go as far as that. I do not know. But the necessity of dealing at Geneva with this government is certainly inescapable. That is the reason we are going to Geneva.
The other night the Leader of the Opposition suggested that British policy on the recognition of communist China was that of the Labour government and not necessarily that of the United Kingdom as a whole. He felt that some statements of Mr. Eden's supported that point of view. I suggest that that is not a historically accurate portrayal of the situation because the leader of the Conservative party, shortly before recognition was given on November 17, 1950-Mr. Churchill, as he then was-said that diplomatic relations should be established with the communist regime. The Conservative party, as a party, did not oppose the Labour government of the day in London when it announced its decision.
So far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we will not act at Geneva, I hope, in a way which would betray national honour, national interests, or our hopes for peace. We are going there, so far as Korea is concerned, to convert an armistice into a peace. We have a United Nations resolution for that purpose which, as I suggested the other day, will be our instructions on this matter.
It has been said by more than one hon. member of the opposition that we have adopted a different attitude in respect to Indo-China. We were asked why we did not show a more active interest in the IndoChinese problem, which is possibly as important to the peace of the world as the Korean problem. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very real difference between the two positions in so far as Canadian participation.

External Affairs
if not Canadian interests, is concerned. We have been invited to Geneva, as a member of the United Nations with forces participating in Korea, to help bring about a peace settlement. The text of the invitation makes that quite clear, and I shall read it: In accordance with the proposal agreed upon at a meeting of the foreign ministers of the United States, France, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union, February 18, 1954, and announced in the enclosed communique of the same date the government of the United States has the honour to extend to the government of Canada an invitation to participate, if it so desires, in the Korean political conference to be convened at Geneva on April 26.
In so far as the Indo-Chinese aspect of this conference is concerned, the communique of the foreign ministers in Berlin has this to say. They are agreeable that the problem of restoring peace in Indo-China will also be discussed at the conference, to which representatives of the United States, France, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Chinese People's Republic and other interested states will be invited. Our position here is, however, entirely different. We have not been invited to take part in the Indo-Chinese discussions. There was a basis for our invitation to the Korean peace conference because we are a participating power in the Korean operation. It might be a quite different situation in so far as Indo-China is concerned.
It may well be that those most immediately concerned will want to keep that conference restricted to those who are actually concerned with Indo-Chinese operations.


Mr. Fulton:: Would the minister be kind enough to read that communique again, because it does not seem to be capable of the interpretation he is putting upon it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It says they are agreed that the problem in Indo-China will also be discussed at the conference-that is the Korean conference-to which representatives-that is to the Indo-Chinese discussion-to which representatives of the United States, France, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Chinese People's Republic and other interested states will be invited.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That surely refers to the Korean conference.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It has been made quite clear to us that "the interested parties" refers to those who may be invited to the IndoChinese talks. If we are invited we shall play as active a part as we can. However, if it appears to be in the best interests of settling the problem that the discussion be restricted to the four or five countries

immediately concerned, I do not think it would serve the best interests of peace to press for an invitation.
In the process of negotiations at Geneva, concessions of some kind may be necessary on both sides to reach any solution. For instance, if some concessions had not been made and some compromise had not been reached at Panmunjom-a compromise upon which the United Nations did not desert its principles-we would have had no armistice at all and no peace negotiations could even be attempted in Geneva. No one I assume opposes or opposed at the time the armistice, and no one in this house opposes the invitation to the Geneva conference. It may be that the hon. member for Prince Albert has some mental reservation about the wisdom of this conference. He is quoted as having said in Toronto, according to the Toronto Globe and Mail of March 9, that the Red Chinese attendance at the conference in Geneva is a victory for Russia. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that that is not the case; because China will not be in Geneva as one of the five great powers, or after recognition, or even as an inviting power. Indeed, it is hard to imagine Mr. Dulles, Mr. Eden or Mr. Bidault agreeing to a proposal for a conference at Geneva, if it were a victory for Russia.
Red China will be at that conference in Geneva because we cannot negotiate a peace in Korea without her attendance. Whether we can do it with her attendance remains to be seen.
On February 2, 1951, I said in the house, referring to the Chinese communists:
They should not think that they can bludgeon or blackmail their way into recognition or the United Nations.
I still feel that way, and also feel that Peking should not be granted diplomatic recognition merely because they signed an armistice in Korea or have agreed to go to a conference in Geneva. But that does not mean that we will not negotiate with this government now in authority in China, when we should do so, or with any other communist government when it is necessary to do so.
We have accepted this invitation, and I hope the Canadian delegation will not follow any course at Geneva or take any action there which would justify the gloomy forebodings expressed last Friday by the Leader of the Opposition, based upon impressions-and as I see it erroneous impressions-that he had received from press quotations. We are not carrying an umbrella to Geneva, nor are we brandishing a bomb either.
Last Friday some pretty violent language was used in respect of some who will be

attending this conference. Communist leaders were called thieves and murderers, and there was talk about compromising with the devil. There was talk about the extermination of these tormentors and betrayers of humanity.
I am not sure that very much is gained by this kind of talk on the eve of a meeting, the invitation to which we have accepted and which, after all, cannot achieve anything positive except by some kind of agreement after negotiation with these people.
Then, having painted a pretty black picture of what we are up against, the leader of the official opposition surprised me by saying also-


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not suggesting that those words he quoted are mine, is he? The ones with regard to thieves referred to China, which has our ships; and they are stolen.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not identify those words with any particular member in the house. The Leader of the Opposition did mention thieves and murderers.


George Alexander Drew: With regard to the Ming Sung ships.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He was talking about communists in China, and he did mention the danger of dealing with the devil in respect of communist negotiations.


George Alexander Drew: But the other words are not mine. I just wish to make that clear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the minister wish to continue, or shall we declare the motion carried?


Mr. Coldwell:: Why not finish now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I can have five minutes I could finish.


Mr. Speaker:: A messenger from the Senate has just come to the door.


Major James William Coldwell: Why can that not wait?


Mr. Harris:: On one point of order, Mr. Speaker, would it be the desire of the house
The Royal Assent
to continue, and to finish this debate when we come back from the Senate rather than continue it later?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I think we had better follow the usual procedure.


THE ROYAL ASSENT
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act respecting the Dominion Fire Insurance Company.
An act respecting Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company.
An act to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
An act respecting the export and import of strategic and other goods.
An act to establish an account for the replacement of government property lost, destroyed or damaged through fire.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1955.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1954.

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow we shall go on with this debate and then the Criminal Code. It may be that the Minister of Justice will find it desirable to ask that certain sections stand. When they have all been disposed of, either by having been passed or having been allowed to stand, we shall then take supply, the Department of Public Works. But on Friday we shall return to the Criminal Code for whatever part may not be disposed of tomorrow.
It being ten minutes after six o'clock, the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, April 1, 1954