1954-03-30

['Thank you.']
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling three copies, in English and in French, of the text of the international sugar agreement. Possibly I might make a short statement on this agreement.
Hon. members may be aware that Canada was represented at the United Nations conference on sugar which was held in London last year from July 13 to August 25 inclusive, and from which emerged an international agreement for the regulation of the production and marketing of sugar. Under the provisions of the international sugar agreement, governments which were represented at the conference may accede to the agreement by depositing an "instrument of accession" with the United Kingdom government. Sufficient governments, including the governments of the United Kingdom and of the United States, have now deposited their instruments of ratification or notified their intention to do so to bring the agreement into force from January 1, 1954. The agreement is to remain in force for five years.
My purpose in rising at this time is merely to inform the house of the intention of the government to participate in the international sugar agreement, copies of which I have now tabled. The government does not propose, however, to accede formally to the agreement until hon. members have had an opportunity to study its provisions and to offer any comments or submit any questions with respect to its provisions. This opportunity to discuss the sugar agreement will be afforded when the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce are before the house.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the report from London that the foreign office had been informed in
advance of the content of Mr. Dulles' speech, will he inform us whether similar information was communicated to the Canadian government with regard to the content of that speech?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker; we were not given an advance copy of the speech nor were we consulted about it. As a matter of fact, I do not think it should be expected that Mr. Dulles would consult us or give us an advance copy of his speech every time he makes one. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we would certainly expect to be consulted before the United States adopted any policy or accepted any obligations or commitments in the carrying out of which Canadian cooperation or participation would be expected or which would directly affect this country. I have had the advantage of reading the text of Mr. Dulles' speech, and I do not think those circumstances would apply to this particular speech.


Mr. Jean-Frangois Pouliot (Temiscouala):: Mr. Speaker, in order to make things even, following the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), may I ask this question? Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs send advance copies of his speeches to Mr. Dulles in his capacity of Secretary of State of the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. That has
not been my custom.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Canadian government any information as to whether last Friday's hydrogen bomb explosion got out of control in the way that the one did on March 1? Can the minister say whether the Canadian government knows whether any further such tests are in prospect?
3470	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have no information regarding the results of the explosion of the hydrogen bomb a few days ago. We know that there is to be another experimental explosion shortly. At the present time there is a qualified scientific official of the Canadian government in Washington where I have no doubt he will be given all the information available on the results of the recent explosion and plans for future ones.



PROTECTION PROM POSSIBLE DANGER OP CONTAMINATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Casileden (Yorkton):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I gave notice. It is in a way supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. What steps are being taken to protect the Canadian people from possible dangers of contamination by radioactive materials which might reach Canada from the explosion of bombs in the Pacific?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Associate Minister of National Defence):: I shall take this question as notice.



INQUIRY AS TO RADIOACTIVE DUST-MELFORT, SASK.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldt-Melfori):: I
should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question, of which I have given him notice. In his absence, I will direct it to the associate minister. Has the minister any statement to make following yesterday's press reports concerning the presence of radioactive dust in the Melfort area of Saskatchewan? Have representations been made to Washington regarding this matter?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his questions, Mr. Speaker. In reply to the first question I have no statement to make beyond this, that I am advised by our scientists that it is not at all uncommon to find traces of radioactivity in rain, in dust and in snow from time to time at various places across Canada. None of these traces has been found to be of sufficient strength to be in any way harmful, and therefore they have been regarded as without any particular significance.
I am not aware of any more of the circumstances concerning radioactive indications at Melfort other than those which I have seen in the press.


With regard to the second question, as to whether representations have been made to Washington, I think that it is evident, from the circumstances as I have outlined them, that no such representations were considered necessary.



REQUEST FOR INTERIM PAYMENT ON DELIVERIES OF 1953 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), may I say that the only letter that has been received from the government of Manitoba had to do with a question asked by Mr. Arthur Ross, M.L.A., with regard to supplementary payments on oats and barley. I was obliged to send the answer that I would have given in the house had a similar question been asked here, namely that government policy would be made known in due course.



DISPOSAL OF WESTERN WHEAT SURPLUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is one of importance and significance to the western wheat farmers. In order to give farmers a lead as to the position they might take with reference to this year's crop operations, can the minister say what are the prospects for Canada's wheat surplus being disposed of during the present year and to what degree the wheat on the farms in the western provinces may be expected to be sold or disposed of in the elevators before this year's crop is harvested?


Clarence Decatur Howe: My hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of his intention to ask this question and I have prepared the reply in some detail. In dealing with this question I should first of all like to refer to the delivery position so far in the crop year. From August 1, 1953, to March 17, 1954, producers' deliveries of grain in the prairie provinces amounted to 403 million bushels. If allowance is made for delivery since March 17, the actual delivery figure now stands at approximately 410 million bushels. At the present time the general quota is five bushels per specified acre. In addition, there have been substantial special authorizations

for the delivery of barley suitable for malting, and there is a supplementary oats quota of 12 bushels per seeded acre. Recently delivery quotas have been raised above the five bushels per specified acre level at a number of individual points.
With the excellent movement of grain from the Pacific coast ports this year, the five bushel quota has generally been provided for in the province of Alberta. In Saskatchewan, and to a lesser extent in Manitoba, additional shipments are required before the general five bushel quota can be implemented. The wheat board is acutely conscious of this problem and is working on a shipping policy designed to relieve congested points in Manitoba and Saskatchewan just as soon as physically possible. I might add, however, that there is one difficulty which cannot be underestimated. With only limited storage space throughout Canada, it is essential that only kinds of grain and grades of grain which are in demand can be moved to forward positions and this factor has and will continue to slow down the movement of grain from many areas in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. For example, the board has ample stocks of No. 2 northern wheat in eastern positions at the present time and any No. 2 northern wheat which is moved forward to terminal points must, for the time being at least, be treated as grain for storage. I might add that this problem is receiving the continuous attention of the board.
Since the turn of the year space has been appearing at some delivery points, particularly in Alberta. In order to make use of this space, the board commenced on March 17 to increase delivery quotas beyond the five bushel level. The increases have been in terms of either one or two bushels per specified acre dependent upon space available at the delivery points concerned. As soon as the quotas are increased above the five bushel level at individual points, these stations are cut off from further shipments except for shipments specially authorized by the board. This will have the effect of increasing car supply to areas of greatest need. At the present time delivery quotas have been increased above the- five bushel level at slightly 'over 200 delivery points.
The question before us requests an estimate of delivery prospects for the balance of the crop year. This is a very difficult type of estimate to make because the quantity of grain which producers will be able to market in the prairie provinces between now and the end of the crop year depends almost entirely upon the volume of domestic and export sales, and generally the buying of grain today is on a hand to mouth basis.
Inquiries of the Ministry Therefore the delivery possibilities for the balance of the crop year will depend to a large extent upon day to day selling on the part of the wheat board. We know of course that there are quantities of grain which will leave Canada shortly after the opening of navigation. We have confidence that there will be worth-while buying of Canadian grain over the period of the next four months.
I would hazard a guess that in the crop year 1953-54 producers in the prairie provinces will market somewhere around 600 million bushels of grain which will be well above normal marketings based upon normal crops. If we attain this figure of marketing in 195354, the total volume of grain marketed from the bumper crops of 1951, 1952 and 1953 will amount to nearly 2,200 million bushels. This is a very large record of marketings over a period of thirty-six months.


Mr. Argue:: With respect to the marketing prospects for this year, does the minister think that the quota of seven bushels, wherever it is in effect, may be increased before the end of the crop year, or is the target to get everyone up to a quota of seven bushels only by the end of the crop year?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Seven bushels per acre, based on the specified acreage, is a very large quantity of grain indeed, almost the entire crop of last year. I would say that if we are successful in getting deliveries up to the seven bushel quota per specified acre everyone should be quite happy.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister realize that in many areas seven bushels per cultivated acre is less than half of the crop produced last year?


Mr. Harkness:: Can the minister give us a breakdown of the 410 million bushels as to how much of it is wheat, how much oats and how much barley?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I could obtain that information. It will take time, but if my hon. friend wishes to have the question answered later I will be glad to bring down an answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to ask the
Minister of Trade and Commerce a supplementary question based on the estimate that he has now made. Having regard to the *potential sales domestically and in foreign markets of Canadian wheat, what is his estimate of the number of bushels of wheat that will be in farm storage at the time the harvesting of the 1954 crop commences?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Clarence Decatur Howe: I have given my
estimate of the probable marketings of wheat. The other figures having to do with the carryover and the size of the crop are available. I could get the figures for my hon. friend or he could get them for himself just as easily. However, I shall be glad to get them.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: May I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? Since press reports have indicated that plans to commence construction of the Mica creek dam on the Columbia river are practically cut and dried, may I ask the minister if the international joint commission has in fact made any decision on the matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of his question. I had a reply but I do not have it with me. I will give it to him tomorrow, if he will accept my apologies.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance with reference to his statement of March 26 announcing the calling of the third and fourth victory loans, amounting to some $2 billion. Can the minister say anything further as to refunding plans?
Hon. Douglas Abbot! (Minister of Finance):
No, Mr. Speaker. I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate that any answer I might give would have market implications. The announcement will be made in due course.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask the minister if he expects to be able to borrow at less than 3 per cent?


Mr. Abbott:: That is another matter we will deal with in due course.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. J. Brooks (Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I sent notice of this question to the Minister of National Defence. I see he is not in his


place so I will ask the Associate Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the Department of National Defence to acquire additional land east of Camp Gage-town, across the Saint John river, known as the Jemseg and Grand lake area, for an air base or any other purpose? As I say, I sent the minister notice, but possibly the associate minister has not had notice and I would ask him to take the question as notice and give me an answer as soon as possible.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I was not aware that notice of this question had been given, but it is my general understanding-I speak subject to correction if I find the facts to be otherwise-that there is no intention on the part of the department to acquire additional land across the Saint John river from the Gagetown site.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to have a definite answer. These people are very much concerned and we would like to have a definite answer whether or not there is any such intention.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: On Thursday, March 25, in reply to a question by the hon. member for Peterborough relating to temporarily unemployed purchasers of houses from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I gave a brief answer. Since then I have had queries from the hon. member for Welland and others and perhaps I should elaborate somewhat on the policy that is followed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in such cases.
As I indicated on Thursday, the corporation is sympathetic to the plight of purchasers who find themselves temporarily out of work. If a purchaser is in difficulty because of unemployment or other circumstances beyond his control, it is usually possible for him to work out an arrangement with the local office of the corporation to relieve him of his temporary difficulty. Unfortunately there are purchasers who disregard the reminder notices of the corporation. When this happens it leaves the corporation with no alternative but to advise the purchaser of the corporation's intention to take action to cancel the agreement. I might say that there are very few cases indeed where the corporation has to resort to legal action. In 1953, out of 30,500 agreements for sale there were only three properties repossessed by the corporation.

In the Crowland-Welland area, which several members have discussed with me, the corporation has sold 750 houses on a deferred payment plan. The term for repayment varies, but the average monthly instalment is approximately $28, which includes a provision for the payment of monthly taxes and as such must be regarded as being rather modest.
As I have indicated, where there is genuine distress arising out of unemployment the corporation will give every possible consideration to working out an arrangement suitable to both the purchaser and the corporation. Having regard to its responsibility for the management of public funds, the corporation does not follow a policy of waiving or postponing the collection of the monthly instalments on a wholesale basis. Each individual case is dealt with on its merits and only such measure of relief as the circumstances of each individual case may warrant is given.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: On that occasion I asked the Minister of Public Works if he had seen what the Minister of Trade and Commerce had said, that people would not be evicted from their homes-
Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade
and Commerce): On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I suggest that neither the hon. member nor anyone else has heard what was reported to have been said, because it was not said. I simply said the government was a good landlord.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: As I mentioned at that time, the statement appeared in the press of that morning and I have a copy of it here if the minister would like to see it.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I suggest that what my hon. friend is reading is what the newspaper reporter wrote, and not what the minister said.


Mr. Fleming:: Did the minister not make
any reference to a moratorium on that occasion?


Clarence Decatur Howe: No, sir, he did not. I said that in my experience with the government as a landlord it did not dispossess people who are temporarily out of work through unemployment in an area. I made it quite clear that if they were good tenants otherwise, temporary difficulty, in my opinion, would not be a cause for eviction.
External Affairs INQUIRY FOR RETURN



GENERAL STORES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: On March 22, Mr. Speaker, a question standing on the order paper in my name was passed as an order for return. When can I expect an answer?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secreiary of Stale):: I shall have the matter looked into, sir.



REPORTED NEW ANTIBIOTIC RESEARCH FOR TREATMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["It being five o'clock,\nthe house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills."]
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Yesterday I sent a notice to the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning a newspaper report of new antibiotic research work done in the United States for the treatment of cancer. Can the minister state if anything is being done in Canada in that regard?


Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The new antibiotic, Mr. Speaker, which is known as azaserine, has been receiving early testing on several forms of human cancer. This is a joint project of the Sloan-Kettering Institute on cancer and the Parke-Davis Company with headquarters in the city of Detroit. I think in view of the importance of this matter, it is not desirable I should say any more at this time.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Monday, March 29, 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. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: This external affairs debate has centred largely around the question of the recognition of the communist regime in what is commonly known as Red China. This interest in the house has developed, I believe, largely because of the statements made by our own Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) while he was in the Far East. We were all somewhat startled to read what stand he had taken, and today I propose to quote briefly from three of

External Affairs
the press reports of interviews given by the Prime Minister on this particular question.
The first is a dispatch contained in the Montreal Gazette of March 7 from Seoul, the capital of Korea. The heading of the article reads in this way, "Bound to happen sooner or later." Then the dispatch goes on:
Prime Minister St. Laurent flew into Korea today from Manila after telling reporters there Canada must "sooner or later" recognize communist China.
There are two further significant paragraphs:
Before leaving for Manila on the last lap of his global tour, Prime Minister St. Laurent was asked about relations with communist China.
"We have got to be realistic," he said. "Sooner or later we would be bound to recognize the government that the people want."
That was quite a startling statement, but the Prime Minister repeated it when he was interviewed at Seoul. I have here a dispatch of March 8, the following day, which is entitled, "St. Laurent backs China recognition, world must be realistic on reds, says Prime Minister."
The dispatch reads:
Canada's Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent declared today he believed all nations of the free world in time will have to be "realistic"-
And that word appears in quotation marks.
-and recognize the government of communist China. Prime Minister St. Laurent, in Korea on a world tour, said, "I do feel that some day we are going to have to be realistic. We are going to have to admit the government of China is the government the people want."
And when he had left Korea and gone to Japan he was interviewed again. As a result we had a report in Canadian newspapers with the heading "St. Laurent Repeats 'Let's be Realistic'; 'Reds have Effective Control of China'." The article was from Tokyo and said:
Canada's world-travelling Prime Minister spoke out again today on the controversial question of Red China, telling reporters at a press conference that, "it is only the common sense, realistic approach" that allied countries eventually will deal with communist China as the government "in effective control of the China mainland."
Now, you will have noticed that in each of those interviews the Prime Minister used the word "realistic"; he repeated that we have to be realistic about this question. Unfortunately however that is exactly what his own statements were not. I submit they were completely and utterly unrealistic, and for these reasons:
In the first place, recognition of Red China has been in recent months and is today the top communist objective. It was what one might have expected, as a result of the Prime Minister's interviews, that only a day or two later every member in the House of Commons

received a letter from the Canadian peace congress which, as we know, is a communist organization in our own country. This letter was dated March 16, 1954, and was addressed "To members of parliament, on the occasion of the Prime Minister's return from his world tour". In it we find this significant sentence:
At the outset we wish to state our full support for the Prime Minister's statement that the government of China is going to have to be recognized.
That was the immediate reaction to his statements by the communists in Canada.
He was also unrealistic because at that time there was propaganda being put out by communists all over the world about the Geneva conference which is to be held next month. The propaganda was that Red China must be recognized, and the fact that she was going to sit in on this conference showed that she was to be recognized. Yet, while this very question was in the forefront of international affairs, our Prime Minister, while in the Orient, made the statement that freedom-loving nations had to be realistic, and that sooner or later they would have to recognize Red China.
Now, on this question of what is to happen at Geneva: Just about two weeks before the Prime Minister was interviewed Mr. Dulles, Secretary of State of the United States, had taken great care to point out to his own countrymen and to the world at large that the fact that Red China was to be at this conference in Geneva did not mean that she was to be recognized. Incidentally Mr. Dulles said yesterday in the United States that the Geneva conference is not to be a five-power conference at all. Red China is not to be there as one of the five great powers.
I have here a report of his address on February 24. This report reads in part as follows:
In a country-wide radio-television address, Dulles dismissed as "without basis" any fear that agreement to the April 26 meeting implies diplomatic recognition of Red China. The Chinese communists, at Russia's urging, will be seated at the Geneva conference, which will discuss the future of Korea and seek to attain peace in Indo-China. Dulles assailed critics who have contended the seating of Red China at Geneva means the opening wedge toward United States diplomatic recognition of the Peiping regime. Such criticism, Dulles said, tends to give the communists "a success which they could not win at Berlin."
He was referring, of course, to the previous conference. It continues:
"The communist regime will not come to Geneva to be honoured by us but rather to account before the bar of world opinion," he said. The secretary said this was made clear in the Big Four agreement at Berlin last Thursday which proposed the Asiatic peace conference at Geneva in Switzerland.

Then, our Prime Minister was unrealistic because at the very time he was giving these interviews, only a few hundred miles away in Indo-China there was the worst fighting that has taken place in that war, which has now been going on for seven or eight years. French troops were and still are attempting to defend the fortress of Dien Bien Phu. A terrific battle was being fought.
It turns out too in the speech made yesterday by Mr. Dulles that, at the same time, Red China has been guilty of at least forty violations of the one agreement the freedom-loving nations of the world have with her, namely the Korean truce agreement. This must have been known when the Prime Minister was interviewed in the Far East. If he did not know of those violations he should have.
So I repeat that his statements to the press earlier this month were absolutely unrealistic. What has happened has one very salutary lesson for Canadians both in the House of Commons and out of it, and that is that in dealing with communists it is unwise to say that we will have to give, eventually, what they are asking for. To them-and, oh how often this has been proved in the last few years-to communists, that is only appeasement and an invitation to demand more.
It would have been far more realistic for the Prime Minister or any other minister to confine policy statements to the situation as it is today. That was what was done by the President of the United States-and I hold him out as an example to our own cabinet ministers. He was interviewed six days ago, and I have before me a press report of his statement. The heading is "Eisenhower Says No Change in U.S. Red Chinese Stand". It is dated at Washington, March 24, and states:
President Eisenhower said today that as long as present conditions continue there will be no change in the United States' attitude toward communist China.
And that, Mr. Speaker, was all our Prime Minister needed to say when he was interviewed in the Far East. The full text of Mr. Dulles' speech of yesterday appears in today's New York Times. He took the same attitude when he said:
Those responsible for United States policy must ask and answer-
And the question is put in quotation marks:
"Will it help our country if, by recognition, we give increased prestige and influence to a regime that actively attacks our vital interests?" I can find only the answer "no".
I hope from now on members of the Canadian government will not make loose statements in respect of foreign affairs about what Canada "might" do.
External Affairs
Obviously, Mr. Speaker, Red China has no claim whatever to recognition by Canada. She stands branded as an aggressor by the United Nations; she has broken the Korean armistice, we still have our troops in Korea prepared to resist further aggression, and she is carrying on bitter warfare in Indo-China today. Let no one be so simple as to believe that the fighting in Indo-China is not being directed by the Chinese communists, and that the troops there are not being supplied either by the Chinese or Russians with equipment and materials of war.
This position is obviously vastly different from when the Soviet was recognized. She was then not at war with anyone. The condition was completely different. In fact the condition was completely different when the United Kingdom recognized Red China in 1949. There were far more reasons for that step being taken in 1949 than there are for any such step being taken today.
In considering this question of the recognition of Red China, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that general recognition would constitute a tremendous victory for communism right across the world, not only in Asia but everywhere else in the world. I was struck yesterday by the report brought back to the House of Representatives in Washington by a foreign affairs subcommittee which had been visiting the Far East. They had certain recommendations to make to their fellow representatives. One of them was this:
The United States should continue opposing recognition of Red China or admission to the United Nations. The subcommittee said it could not discover any benefit recognition would give the West; but that it would be a smashing victory for communism.
I believe that to be a correct statement.
Then, as Canadians, we must remember the position of Canadians of Chinese origin. We have many thousands of these fellow citizens of ours in British Columbia, most of them living in my home city of Vancouver. During the war years their young men enlisted and fought beside our sons. They played a noble part in bringing about victory. The parents at home subscribed to the Victory loans. I think the quota in Chinatown was always filled just as quickly as in any other part of our city. At the end of the war they were blackmailed by the communists in China; threatening letters were written to the effect that if they did not pay so much their relatives in the homeland would be liquidated. These Canadian Chinese went through that sort of terror for many months, and yet all the way they have stood firmly on the side of freedom, not wavering, have had no truck or trade with communists.

External Affairs
Today in Vancouver the consul of the nationalist government is a highly respected leader among the Chinese Canadians. You find him at all their functions, and their whole support has been given to the cause of freedom rather than toward helping the communist government in China. Just imagine what their position will be if Canada recognizes this communist government. There will be an ambassador here; there will be a communist consul in Vancouver and perhaps in other centres in Canada. What sort of pressure will then be put on the Canadians of Chinese origin? They will be in an impossible position. Not only will they be under terror, but so will their relatives who remain in China. We will have in effect communist beach-heads set up in this country, and that reason, if no other, should be sufficient to prevent the Canadian government from recognizing communist China.
Surely we must remember that communist promises have no value. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), when he goes to Geneva, will not be led down the garden path of communist promises that they are going to be good boys in the future. From statements given both by him and by the Prime Minister earlier in the debate one wonders whether the government is not going to be all too anxious to listen to promises of that kind from Red China.
I turn again to Mr. Dulles' speech of yesterday when he dealt with this same situation so clearly. He said:
It would be reckless for us to ignore the events of recent years which have filled our archives with vain promises. We are not in the market for more.
It is now the policy of the United States not to exchange United States performance for communist promises.
I hope that will be the policy adopted by the Canadian government. Later in his speech he said:
We shall not, however, be disposed to give communist China what it wants from us, merely to buy its promises of future good behaviour.
I ask the position of the Canadian government on the statement of policy made yesterday by Mr. Dulles. I was amazed earlier this afternoon to hear our Secretary of State for External Affairs say that Mr. Dulles' policy speech yesterday did not affect Canada, and there would be no question of Canada being expected to give any co-operation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never said that.


Howard Charles Green: If that is the idea the Secretary of State for External Affairs has of Mr. Dulles' speech yesterday, all I can say is that he must have read it backwards.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was not what I said.


Howard Charles Green: Well, that was the implication in the answer given by the minister, and he can clear this thing up very easily when he closes this debate and can say exactly where the Canadian government stands on this new statement of policy which has been enunciated by Mr. Dulles; whether or not Canada approves of that policy, and if she does not approve of it all, let the minister say in what respects Canada does not approve, and give Canada's alternative policy.
And, Mr. Speaker, recognition of Red China would not end the menace in the Pacific. Recognition did not end the menace in the Atlantic. There we have had recognition of the Soviet by most of the nations for a generation. Soviet Russia was an ally in the war and is a fellow member of the United Nations, and yet we had to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Our Prime Minister on his tour went so far as to say there should be a broader integration among the nations that are partners of the North Atlantic treaty. By the way, the Prime Minister has not explained just what he meant by that statement. He should explain, or the Secretary of State for External Affairs should explain what is meant by that statement of our Prime Minister in western Germany. I have here a report from Bonn, dated February 11. The heading is:
P.M. suggests much broader integration within NATO.
The article reads:
Prime Minister St. Laurent, in the major address of his west German visit, last night suggested a concept of integration of the western powers much broader than the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European defence community.
In a dinner speech, while a guest of Chancellor Konrad Adenauer, before members of the west German cabinet, the Canadian leader put forward the idea of a political, economic and defence system of countries situated around the "great basin of the Atlantic".
A further paragraph quotes the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as saying:
Perhaps the time has come now to consider whether some steps toward closer integration . . . should be taken within the larger framework of the North Atlantic community.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in his speech said that in the Atlantic we want collective action, and we want consultation. Apparently all these things are necessary in the Atlantic. But in the Pacific what system is there for united action? Such a system was not even mentioned by either the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There is no clear-cut policy. This subcommittee

of the House of Representatives dealt with that too in their recommendations published yesterday when they stated:
The United States and free world lack a "clear and firm policy" on Asia and should draft one quickly.
Asia today is the key continent. I have as an authority for that the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In 1950 upon his return from a trip to the Far East a report was issued the heading of which is, "Asia, not Europe, Key Continent Now: Pearson." The article continues:
Freshly returned from the trip today, Mr. Pearson said there had been a shift In the centre of gravity in international affairs from Europe to the Far East.
He went on:
Soviet imperialism, for the time being, seemed to be contained in Europe by two factors: the military alliance created by the Atlantic pact and the economic progress which had been attained. In the Far East, however, the Soviet brand of communism appeared to be making great progress, he noted. There was a danger it might overrun the whole of Asia. Its most dramatic success had been in China.
That was on February 10, 1950. Yesterday the same hon. gentleman was quoted as saying here in Ottawa in a speech on Sunday, March 28:
Mr. Pearson said that in his view there was nothing more important in the world today than the 800 million people in Asia.
The Pacific area is obviously far more dangerous than the Atlantic and has been for some years. There has been a real war going on in the Pacific for some years now.
Red China and the Soviet are together in Asia. It is not a case of just the Soviet union. You have these two great nations together. Just think of the reserves of manpower available with which to make trouble in Asia. Red China is communist. We hear a lot of talk about this being an agrarian movement in China. I have here the latest publication of the "Behind the Headlines" series of the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. In an article entitled "China under Communist Control" the author, Dr. A. Stewart Allen, who was a medical missionary with the United Church of Canada in China from 1929 until he was deported in 1951, and who should know what he is writing about, states:
A large number of people still do not realize that ene present changes there are not mainly the result of an agrarian reform movement, but of Russian communism which is the basis of the present government.
External Affairs
He goes on to describe how the Chinese have tried to indoctrinate prisoners and people there who are in their control. He states:
In indoctrination classes it was very plainly stated that the Chinese plan is to assist in ushering in world communism. They state they have no need to worry about their northern borders which are friendly. But on all other borders, and especially to the south, they must assist in "liberating" their "friends" from their "colonial and oppressed status".
Indo-China, Thailand, Malaya, Indonesia, Burma, India are all in the next line of threat from China.
In Toronto a few weeks ago, the date was January 25, Lieutenant General A. C. Wede-meyer of the United States dealt with the same question and he said in part:
However, many of our leaders were influenced after world war II by communist propaganda to the effect that the Chinese reds were peaceful agrarians-democratic and friendly to the objectives of the west. We have been paying for that false judgment ever since.
He was addressing the Toronto board of trade. He pointed out that he had known Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai for some years before they came into power. He stated:
They owe everything to the Kremlin, from which they received their training and support. They are still receiving liberal assistance from the Soviet union. So long as the communist oligarchy is secure in its rule of the Soviet empire, in my judgment, the Chinese reds would not dare desert it.
Canada, our own country, is directly affected. Canada is a nation on the Pacific. Sometimes people think Canada only faces on the Atlantic, but Canada also faces on the Pacific and the Arctic and we would be wise to remember that in this house.
If Japan or Formosa or the Philippines go red then the first line of defence for this nation will be on the west coast. Make no mistake about that.
If North America is ever invaded it will be from Asia, not from Europe, and it will be by the red Chinese. Let us not forget that fact either.
Earlier today we had questions about the results of the H-bomb tests at Bikini. On our west coast a few days ago they were using geiger counters to see whether a shipload of tuna fish caught by Japanese fishermen was radioactive. Our west coast is vitally concerned as regards the Pacific ocean and it should be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the Pacific is not yet an American lake.
These things affect Canada on the Pacific but very little has been done in that area to build a cohesive defence. The United States has a series of agreements. She has a defensive agreement with Australia and New Zealand known as the ANZUS treaty; she has another with the Philippines; and

External Affairs
another with South Korea and she has a treaty of a little different sort with Japan. But Canada has been standing aloof in the Pacific. Canada has been following a no commitment policy in so far as entering into any defence treaty has been concerned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have had 30,000 men in Korea.


Howard Charles Green: I am aware of that, but Canada has not seen fit to take any part in any of these treaties in the Pacific.


An hon. Member:: Except in Korea.


Howard Charles Green: Canada should take a stand. Canada should have a policy for united action in the Pacific, a policy such that she will be consulted. We should be consulted about what is to be done in the Pacific, and we should have a policy of such a nature that the freedom-loving nations could work together in that area.
The present government has never agreed. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has rather pooh-poohed my suggestion along these lines now for several years. I suggest the time has come for Canada to take some action.
My suggestions have been that there should be worked out in the Pacific a defence pact similar to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and that in the meantime the ANZUS treaty could be extended to include some nations such as Canada and the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied with: "Oh, well, Canada has not been invited so how could we get in?" 1 am afraid Canada has never taken any steps to ask for an invitation. There has never been any suggestion from the minister or the Prime Minister that Canada was anxious to get in or that she would ever lift one little finger to bring about that result.
Senator William F. Knowland, the majority leader in the United States Senate, upon his return from a trip to the Far East last November made certain suggestions. I have here a press dispatch dated November 17 from Washington, in which he had some very interesting proposals to make. It reads in part as follows:
He expressed the hope that the new Philippine president Ramon Magsaysay would call a conference of free "non-neutralist" Pacific nations as soon as possible to consider widening the old Australia, New Zealand, United States pact, which he said was too narrow a base, savouring too much of the outworn colonialism, to build a general Pacific security system on.
Then the report continues:
Senator Knowland envisaged the conference as including, besides the English-speaking nations of the Pacific, the Philippines, South Korea, Japan, Formosa, Thailand, the Indo-Chinese succession

states of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam, and went as far west as Pakistan, where the United States is considering establishing American bomber bases.
He was asked about Canada, and whether he thought Canada should be a party. The report states as follows:
Asked whether he thought Canada should be included in the proposed conference, Senator Know-land said:
"If a conference of free nations were held certainly I would think Canada would be included."
Canada, although a major Pacific power, is not a party to ANZUS or any other Pacific regional pacts created by the United States. Senator Knowland said he thought it was imperative to get the conference under way soon. "Time is of the essence", he said.
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about that matter in the house in November. As reported at page 151 of Hansard he replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such negotiations taking place at the present time or of their imminent likelihood. I am aware that certain proposals have been made in Washington by members of the congress looking toward the extension of that pact. However, there have been no governmental negotiations as yet to this end.
Other suggestions have been made. Why would it not be reasonable and perhaps vital to encourage natural alliances of the Asiatic nations, to extend the ANZUS treaty, and to make a real attempt to build in the Pacific a defensive alliance? I should like to hear from the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he answers, why it is not possible for something like that to be done. My suggestion may not be the best one, but we just cannot continue to have a vacuum in the Pacific. Something must be done to meet the situation in that area.
To me it is strange that the Prime Minister of this country, in thinking of the future in the Pacific, seemed to think that recognizing red China would end all the trouble. I regret that, while he was in the Far East, he did not direct his efforts to promoting a policy for united action by the freedom-loving nations in the Pacific area.
I hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he replies, will be able to tell us that Canada is now adopting a policy which will bring about that end. We have waited all too long for leadership from the Canadian government with regard to Canada's interest in the Pacific. On this question we have had altogether too much soothing syrup from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope he will now tell us that, for our own protection and in the interests of our fellow nations associated with us in trying to save freedom for the world, Canada must adopt in the Pacific area a policy which is more realistic than any she has ever had.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the stands taken by my leader in connection with the question of the recognition of China, the question of technical aid and assistance to undeveloped countries, the extension of the Colombo plan and also urging every proper development of the trade and cultural relations of all countries. I endorse the remarks he made concerning the hydrogen bomb and his appeal to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to urge that no further bombs be exploded until we have an opportunity for consultation between the countries concerned.
When the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden), I think it was, asked a question of which he had given notice-and I understand it was considerable notice-concerning the hydrogen bomb, I was rather surprised that the minister in question simply replied that he would take it as notice of question. Regardless of what has been said in this house by various speakers concerning the public concern over the future experimentation with the dropping of hydrogen bombs, I also notice that Washington just goes ahead and seems to do just what it wants to do, without any consultation or without informing us of what is being done. We hear about it afterwards.
I have been greatly interested to note that there is a sharp difference of opinion between the Progressive Conservatives and the C.C.F. with respect to this question of the recognition of China. In fact, our recognition of China has been taken, by the benches on the right, somewhat as a sinister affair according to some of the remarks that have been made by various speakers, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) and, this afternoon, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). What interests me is that the Progressive Conservatives in this house apparently hold a quite different point of view on this question from that of the Conservatives in the British House of Commons. When this matter has been raised previously, as it was, I think, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, his answer was, "Oh, yes; Great Britain expressed those opinions prior to the Korean war". But that is not so. I want to quote briefly from an article which appeared in the Vancouver Sun of Friday, September 4, 1953. It clearly indicates that the government of Great Britain today takes a very different point of view towards the recognition of China at this time from that which the Progressive Conservatives take in this house. Strangely enough, the C.C.F. group in this 83276-220i
External Affairs
house are much closer to the Conservative government in Great Britain on this question than are the Conservatives in this house. I will quote briefly from this article. It is entitled "U.K. Wants China in UN When Time is Ripe" and reads in part as follows:
Admission of Red China into the United Nations is advocated by the United Kingdom as a matter of practical diplomacy. In no way does it involve approval of communism.
That is our point of view. To continue:
The British position is held despite the fact that London has maintained relations with the Red regime in apparently difficult and unrewarding circumstances.
Recently Minister of State Selwyn Lloyd made a statement at Westminster which clarifies the United Kingdom attitude and touches upon the present situation in China. Excerpts follow.
These are excerpts from the minister's speech. And by the way, I should like to say that when it comes to a question of foreign affairs and I am in doubt I, as one of those who believe in building unity within the commonwealth, as does this party, would rather seek advice from the parliamentarians of Great Britain who have had such long experience in foreign affairs and have such great balance, than refer to Mr. Dulles day after day, after what he has done recently. Quotations from the minister's speech are as. follows:
The point of principle is made perfectly clear,, that Her Majesty's government believes that the Central People's government should represent China, in the United Nations.
The issue, therefore, is one of timing.
It is a matter for discussion, not necessarily for public discussion, but we have again and again indicated that as soon as the armistice occurred! this was a matter which would have to be con.-sidered between us and our allies.
I would say categorically that I regard the signing of the armistice as having advanced this matter.
While the Tories of this house are trying to push it backwards. To continue:
It has certainly brought us one stage further forward.
I will state all the points which seem to affect the matter . . . First of all, there is the question of the observation of the armistice agreement itself. It is an exceedingly complicated agreement. Speaking frankly there is ample opportunity for friction between the parties to it; we sincerely hope that it will be honoured on both sides in good faith, but there is a great deal of opportunity for friction, and we have to see how the situation develops.
Then under the terms of the armistice agreement a political conference has to be set up, and until we see what progress is made at the political conference, with the very thorny problem of Korea, we cannot know whether the armistice is going to be permanent. We have to see how the political conference shapes.
I do not say for a moment that we have to wait two, three or four years, but we have to see how the discussions take place, and whether there is really on both sides the degree of good faith which will make a success of the armistice. That will be shown in the course of the political discussions.

External Affairs
I submit that the attitude of the government of Great Britain is one of common sense. It does not approach the question having made up its mind prior to any meeting that China cannot be recognized. It is approaching the question hoping for good faith on both sides and as a result of that expression of good faith the recognition of China and admission of China to the United Nations. That is exactly the attitude of the C.C.F. group in this house, although some of our good friends to the right seem to consider that a rather radical suggestion.
I listened most carefully to the minister's explanation of Mr. Dulles' explanation, and while I fully appreciate, and I know the house appreciates, the stand the minister took in the speech he made in Washington, I must admit that when he finished I was just about as foggy as when he started. I am of the opinion that when Mr. Dulles made the first speech he intended to say what he did say and later tried to explain it away. My conviction is somewhat strengthened by reading a speech Mr. Dulles made at the American Legion -convention last September which I think clearly indicates the frame of mind with which Mr. Dulles approaches these questions. He addressed the American Legion convention in St. Louis on September 3 last year, and with respect to relations with the world at large he went on to say:
There is much, talk these days about the increased responsibility that now devolves upon the United States. That responsibility is a reality ... we do not now have to be constantly taking international public opinion polls to find out what others want and then doing what it seems will make us popular. Leadership won that way is shabby and fleeting. Our present duty is rather to adhere with increased loyalty to what, in our past, has been tested and found worthy.
Mind you, the past has been one of lack of consultation in these matters with the rest of the world.
For more than a century our conduct and example won for us world-wide respect and prestige. That is the only kind of leadership worth having.
I think these remarks indicate Mr. Dulles' rather independent attitude toward this question of consultation with allies before making statements and important decisions. As far as this group is concerned, we are of the -opinion that when Mr. Dulles made that statement he intended to frighten the Soviet union, but all he has done is to frighten most of his allies. We do urge that strong representations be made to indicate the repercussions in this country following a speech such as Mr. Dulles made with respect to massive retaliatory action and so on in case of certain circumstances.
[Mr. Herridge.l
In listening to the minister's speech I was interested to note that he made very slight, if any, reference to article 2 of the Atlantic pact. We have heard a great deal about that in recent years but as far as I am concerned I can see very little action and I strongly second the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) who, I think, made a most excellent contribution to this debate, particularly on that point. I was particularly interested in listening to Mr. James Minifie's remarks on "Mid-week Keview" on February 11, 1954. I thought what he had to say concerning article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty alliance was very fitting so I sent for a copy of the script. I must give the C.B.C. credit. They did not have a copy here and actually sent to New York for it. I got the original script from which I have had a copy made. On that date Mr. Minifie made remarks which I thought were most fitting and which convey in a very few lines the sentiment of a goodly number of people, including the members of this group. He said:
The NATO alliance was originally set up with a very definite restriction, it becoming a purely military organization. This was paragraph II of the North Atlantic treaty, which was inserted by Lester B. Pearson, Canadian secretary for external affairs.
I see the minister shaking his head. Is he denying a good thing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It was not the act of any one man.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The minister took a leading part in proposing that section, I presume. I continue:
It was heavily supported by the Norwegians, the French and the Dutch. Sentiment in favour of it was so marked at the first council meeting that Mr. Acheson directed that the minutes note that the sense of the house was that paragraph II be taken up at the next meeting. This did not happen. Paragraph II to all intents and purposes became a dead letter. It dealt with political, economic and cultural meshing of the members of the alliance. It was designed by the smaller members of NATO to prevent a feud which they already foresaw. This was the subordination by the most powerful members of the alliance-the United States and the United Kingdom-of everything to the military factor.
The smaller members, and there are twelve of them, were deeply concerned over the peaceful development of the alliance. But this ran counter to the trend of the United States, which was more and more to prevent any sacrifice or delegation of national sovereignty. The ideal of the smaller members could be summed up in the words of Lord Acton, the great historian of two generations past. He said: "The process of civilization depends on transcending nationality," and he added, "The nations aim at power-the world at freedom". This, when you consider the heart of the matter is the basic difficulty which the grand alliance is now

facing. It is the return to nationalism or to what Walter Lippmann recently described as "cantankerousness under the guise of patriotism".
I thought that was very well put and I hope when the minister replies at the conclusion of this debate he will inform the house what has been and is being done under article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty, or what is proposed.
I come now to a question on which I particularly want to say a few words this afternoon because I feel very keenly about the matter. What I have to say this afternoon represents the opinions of a good many veterans in my constituency and a good number of Canadians throughout Canada. I refer to the question of German rearmament, and I want to say that in this respect it is my opinion that history is clearly repeating itself. Two generations of youth of major countries have been sacrificed to repel unprovoked and brutal aggression on the part of German forces. The first world war was fought to make the world safe for democracy. At least, that was the slogan at that time. What was the result? Read the histories after the first world war. Read Ludendorff, and Field Marshal Kesselring, who completed his memoirs just last year. The former commanders of the German army were not long in making their plans behind the facade of the Weimar republic to build up the German general staff while they kept the facade of the republic going. For some years it was the German general staff and the German military clique, over the opposition of the democratic socialists who wanted to maintain and improve the republic, that planned a second venture in aggression and brought Hitler to power. At that time the German generals were assisted by the major industrialists who used the republic as a screen for their co-operation with the re-formed general staff and the final build-up of Hitler and the second world war aggression. I might say that the first memorandum with respect to the bringing together of the former general staff, which was supposed legally not to exist, and the working in co-operation with the major armament manufacturers, was actually drafted in 1924.
We had a second world war fought to defeat nazism and fascism and to build a world based on the principles of the Atlantic charter, in which a great many people lost their lives. So far as I can see, Mr. Speaker, the result is that the same old gang are getting into power again. The military clique in Germany is gaining power daily and the industrial leaders, many of whom supported Hitler, are now increasing in power. The
External Affairs
very people who opposed Hitler, and were our allies in spirit although they could not take much action under the tyranny of the nazi regime, are being pushed aside and having less and less to say in Germany today. I get a lot of information from considerable reading, and from a good many relatives and friends who have a considerable interest in continental and international affairs.
What do we find in Germany now? Large numbers of former nazi officers are holding office under the present German government. I believe something like 46 per cent of the office holders in the present German government were former officers of the nazi regime, while many who opposed Hitler are ignored. To illustrate the sentiment that exists in my own district, I want to quote from the Nelson Daily News of Friday, April 24, 1953. This is a conservative newspaper, but it often takes a different view from that of my friends on the right as well as on the left. The leading editorial is headed, "A disturbing sign," and reads as follows:
There are many more nazis in the west German foreign office at Bonn today than there were in Berlin under Hitler, according to Mr. William L. Shirer. Having lived in Hitler's Germany, this correspondent makes a good witness. He may be overstating the case to some extent, but unfortunately facts generally known tend to bear him out.
Relatively few nazis were punished for their affiliations, and of the relative handful who drew prison terms, most have been released. These are considered to have atoned for their errors, and gradually have been accepted in post-war German life. But by and large they have not changed their beliefs or their ways.
That is clearly indicated if you read some of the German papers and find out their position on the situation now.
This pattern is not peculiar to Germany. It has become apparent in Italy as well, although possibly on a less menacing scale. There fascism is impeded by governmental edict, but neo-fascist groups are operating more or less openly, and showing many of the old characteristics . . .
The resurgence of nazi-fascist arrogance so soon after those movements were overpowered by force of arms is a disturbing sign. How to deal with them is a problem, but one lesson learned is that they will not be swayed or impressed by moral suasion.
That means they are not to be swayed or impressed by the use of the methods of democracy, by argument and moral suasion. We read in the papers of war criminals being released, returned to private life and being honoured by their fellow citizens in the various communities from which they come. In many cases also we read of their being at veterans meetings and being acclaimed as leading people so far as these Germans are concerned.

External Affairs
The bodies of war criminals, who were found guilty of atrocities and executed, are being exhumed and given what is termed a worthy reburial under official auspices. In many cases there is not any kind of repentance for crimes against humanity. The other day when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking he said he recognized the atrocities and the brutal aggression of world war I and the losses we suffered as well as the brutal aggression of world war II and the losses we suffered. But he went on to point out how necessary it was to have these allies.
I want to say this, that the people with whom he wants to get chummy do not look upon these atrocities-I am talking of the generals now and not of many of the ordinary people -in the same way he did when speaking the other day.
I was reading Field Marshal Kesselring's memoirs recently and was struck by what he had to say in concluding the book. It is written in quite an objective way from the German field marshal's point of view. There is no sign of any wrong being done. He spoke of the partisans in Belgium and France, who were fighting for their country, and had to be sacrificed. This is what he says, and these are the people who will be our allies and be part of the European army:
I did not lightly decide to write this book. In the end I made the decision in order from my observatory to contribute something towards a truthful record of a good piece of German history, to the raising of a monument to our magnificent soldiers.
That is just one quotation. I could give dozens of quotations. They show that there is not the slightest sign of understanding of our point of view. I claim, Mr. Speaker, that giving people of that kind command over an army, and integrating them into forces with which we wish to defend ourselves, is simply becoming allies of people who have no understanding of freedom or what it means. Their major objective in life is to retrieve their lost and tattered reputation by war conditions.
Now, what about the situation in the Far East? The dynamism of the nazi people, the industrialists and these military people, is spreading over the Far East. We have former nazi officers of high rank training these forces of Egypt. We find Dr. Voss, the former managing director of the Hermann Goering Works, is in Egypt arranging for the manufacture of arms. We find other German officers are now training the Syrian army. There are teams of bankers, technicians and businessmen flooding the eastern countries. We find Dr. Schacht-I shall always remember with pride that there was one Canadian who had guts enough not to shake hands with this infamous nazi, that is Dr. Schacht, when
(Mr. Herridge.]
he met him in Indonesia. This action resulted in strong repercussions across this country.
I have met hundreds of people who expressed their admiration for Dr. Keenleyside when he refused to shake hands with this behind the scenes nazi who was actually worse than Hitler, because Hitler was the front man but he was one of the engineers of the war, who was able to get his neck out of the noose later on.
This Dr. Schacht is now the financial adviser to Turkey and Greece, and some of these eastern countries. I want to quote from the New Republic of December 14, 1953. In my own opinion it is a most dangerous thing to consider rearming Germany because we will have a tremendous force in central Europe and, in time of crisis, we do not know upon which side they will fight. This is what the writer of this article has to say:
Western authorities in Syria state categorically that there is a communist element in the German military mission there. The "reliability" from the west's point of view of the Germans in Egypt and elsewhere is anybody's guess. It is important to remember, however, in any discussion of this type, that-as post-war experience in Europe and the Near East has clearly shown-former nazi and fascist sympathizers take to collaboration with the communist far more readily, on the whole, than lifelong democrats, whether Conservative, Liberal or socialist.
Before concluding, I just want to deal with a couple of clippings I have here. I have a dear old aunt, Mr. Speaker, who has taken an interest in my spiritual welfare for 45 years. Because I am an Anglican, she has insisted on sending me the Methodist Recorder throughout that whole period. I just want to read from that paper because the editor is what I think would be termed a liberal, with a small "1". He writes on foreign affairs most intelligently, and he is listened to with a great deal of respect in Great Britain, like the former editor of the British Weekly. I want to quote from the editorial of October 1, 1953, because I think it is worth considering. It is headed, "A return to dictatorship". It reads:
If the information coming out of Germany on the government's probable attitude to the press and radio is reliable, as it appears to be, these organizations may soon be working under a censorship not much less effective and stifling than that which existed in the palmy days of Hitler.
The chancellor, Dr. Adenauer, is not yet reported to have agreed with the proposals-and indeed is said to have denied them-but it is clear that great pressure is being brought to bear upon him, though it is difficult to believe that a man who has proved himself to be so liberal-minded, and so doughty a fighter for freedom, will ever bring himself to assent to them. It would be more than that; it would be playing into the hands of an authoritarian party which would bring back some of the worst oppressions from which it was hoped that Germany

had been delivered. It is proposed to set up a new ministry of information, but that is a very harmless title for a very dangerous experiment. It would control press and public relations, and all German propaganda, including radio, television and films. It would issue a "Government press summary" which press and radio would be obliged to quote without comment or criticism; control absolutely all foreign broadcasts, and prepare laws to make newspapers and radio organizations partly subservient to the government. The drafts of these laws indicate their intention. Newspapers would be silenced for periods up to six months for "opposing constitutional order". Editors and journalists who print what is called "distorted news directed against the state" would be fined 100,000 marks, and imprisoned for two years; journalists who came under the ministry's condemnation could be barred from practising their profession for five years. These phrases smack too much of the old dictatorship and of modern Russia and her satellite countries, to be read without apprehension. The vagueness of some of them does not make them more palatable. Almost anything, for instance, can be read into "opposing constitutional order". It was indeed a nazi expression that could be interpreted to mean just what the authorities wanted it to mean. If western Germany is contemplating the muzzling of the press, and the rigid direction of publicity, she would do well to think again. Few things would more quickly raise the suspicions of the free nations, give the communists an easier excuse for another accusation of the destruction of freedom, or do the Federal German Republic more harm in the eyes of that part of the world with which it has expressed its determination henceforth to ally itself.
I mention that because, regardless of the best intentions of the democratic elements in Germany, their best intentions will be pushed aside by the very people to whom I have referred-former generals in the nazi army, members of the former German general staff and those connected with former monopolies, as well as large industrialists.
I have here an article which appeared in the London Tribune of March 5, 1954, under the heading "Go to War With Russia, Says German Army Chief." I do not always agree with this newspaper, but I quote it because when it makes quotations from speeches or documents those quotations are absolutely reliable. It is a very trustworthy publication to quote from, so far as the facts are concerned. The article states:
Herr Bodo Zimmerman, formerly General Zimmerman, and chief of operations to Field Marshal von Rundstedt, wants a German army. And he has a simple reason. He expects and wants a war.
Recently Herr Zimmerman was appointed official publisher to the future German armed forces with the blessing of Dr. Adenauer's shadow defence ministry. He will soon be in business publishing manuals for the German army. He is waiting only for E.D.C. to be ratified.
And these are his views recently given to a Sunday Express reporter and featured in an article by Milton Shulman which appeared in the early editions of last Sunday's Express. "As I see it," he said, "war is inevitable and the side which strikes first with all the force of atomic weapons will win. The future lies with whoever wages a preventive war.
External Affairs
"The tension between East and West will continue indefinitely and will be broken only by war. It would be foolish for the West to sit idly by until Russia has accumulated the strength to defeat the West by striking first. That is why the West, if it is to defeat Russia, ought to launch a preventive war, using all the atomic weapons at its disposal".
Others in Bonn have ideas about the proposed German army rather different from the rather comfortable notions propagated by Mr. Anthony Eden and Mr. Herbert Morrison in last week's debate.	.
Reporting from the West German capital, Sebastian Haffner, Observer correspondent, wrote last Sunday: "There is now a tendency in German military planning circles to regard the modest figure of 12 German divisions laid down by the E.D.C. treaty as already obsolete and to think in far larger numbers. Very moderate and responsible governmental circles talk of 12 active and 12 reserve divisions.
"There are, however, also some semi-official German military experts who speak in private^ of 60 German divisions, to be raised in a few years".
Will not all these hotheads be held in check by Dr. Adenauer, hailed by Churchill as the greatest German statesman since Bismarck?
Dr. Adenauer sometimes talks more tactfully today. Speaking in Hanover in December 1951 he said: "Our chief reason for wanting to enter the European army is to be able to recover our eastern territories".
I speak with some concern and agitation when we start out on the path of rearming Germany-12 divisions in western Germany and in the part controlled by the Soviets, perhaps 25 divisions. It solves nothing. We would just be reliving the history that followed two world wars. Actually we would be preparing the seeds for a third world war.
In conclusion I should like to recall an observation made by the late Field Marshal Wavell when visiting in Ottawa in 1949. Upon being questioned about the international situation he said, if I may paraphrase his remarks, that regardless of our fears of any other country or any other countries, in his opinion and as a result of his wide experience, the greatest menace to world peace in days to come would be a rearmed Germany.
I wish to express my unqualified opposition to proposals for the rearmament of Germany. I believe we would do far better to follow the advice given in Ottawa by the late Field Marshal Wavell-and when I say that, I am not speaking alone. I know I am expressing the views of many Canadians, including many Canadian veterans, who would consider it wiser to follow the advice given by the late Field Marshal Wavell than the advice we are receiving from some quarters concerning this question at the present time.


Mr. Elmore Philpoli (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the debate chiefly to make comments on some of the remarkable statements and misstatements made by members in the opposition.

External Affairs
I find myself in quite considerable agreement with the leader of the C.C.F. group in respect of much of what he said. With one of his suggestions, however, I must take very sharp issue, because it seems to me it would be most unwise to do as he suggested, namely to call off the experiments in connection with the dropping of the hydrogen bombs on the islands of the Pacific, and to transfer those experiments up to the northern Arctic. Of all the places in the whole wide world where there should be no monkeying around with any hydrogen bombs at the moment, certainly that place would be Canada's north pole territory. Because, after all, those boys might make another mistake, so that an explosion might go a little too far either to one side or the other of the pole. Then we would "have had it".
I must say that, while I admire as a person my good friend, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), I find myself in direct and complete disagreement with the ideas he utters in the house. I found some of them most remarkable last night-such as this one, for instance:
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, when the time comes, and it will come, because we are not going to lie down -there is not a man in this house who will vote for giving in to Russia-when we decide, as we will decide, where are we going to attack? How are we going to attack? Are we going to endeavour to send our few boys against approximately 800 million Russians?
And so on. If ever I heard a declaration of war, that was a declaration of war last night. I ask hon. members how that statement will read today or tomorrow perhaps in the newspapers of Moscow, and whether that is the kind of statement that should be made by a responsible member of parliament at this critical stage of history, when every man of intelligence and good will should be devoting every whit of his energy to try and stop this frantic armament race which is now plunging the world toward universal disaster.
While I am on this subject of the hon. member for Lethbridge, I must say that these constant references to this sinister world conspiracy that he is always talking about, of the Turko-Mongolian conspirator, interest me. After all, in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which is our main hope of security and stability in the world, the Turks are one of our most prized and staunchest allies, and every such reference to a Turko-Mongolian conspiracy is certainly, whatever else it is, an indirect insult to these gallant allies of ours, the Turks.
Let me turn to more important matters. I must say that I was literally staggered the other day when my old schoolboy chum and football teammate, the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Drew), made such a colossal faux pas as he made in his reference to China and Yugoslavia. I must say that if it is true, as wise men have said, that no man's judgments are better than the information on which the judgments are based, well then, it is no wonder that the judgments of the Leader of the Opposition on international affairs are so far off the beam as they obviously are. Take this prize statement which appears on page 3377 of Hansard in his speech of March 26:
There is a vast difference between Yugoslavia and China, not in the principles to which they adhere, not in the form of government, but in certain geographic realities. I almost hesitate to use that word "realities" or "realistic", having regard to the context in which it has been used, because "realistic" has been used as "materialistic", but "realistic" nevertheless perhaps does describe the approach we should make to it.
Tito broke with the Kremlin not because he had broken with communism, but because he had certain ambitions of his own, and because he had a very powerful mountain barrier between him and Russia, and because he had behind him the ocean where he could get supplies-
I do wish that the Leader of the Opposition would go on that foreign trip and would take a trip to Yugoslavia, as I myself have had the great privilege of doing when I went myself to look over that country of Yugoslavia, and see whether, according to the evidence I could gather, they had had a real break with Russian communism; because, far from being, as the Leader of the Opposition so inaccurately said, protected by a great mountain barrier between Yugoslavia and Russia, Yugoslavia lies wide open to attack.
I myself have had the great privilege of going over almost every yard of the front line between the country of Yugoslavia and the country of Hungary. After all, I have had a little bit of experience in looking these things over, both as a participant, and as an observer in the war, and I must say that there is no country in all the world that is more wide open to invasion from the east than that same country of Yugoslavia, which was so unfairly belittled by the Leader of the Opposition in this particular reference. It is a country ideal for tank attack; and if the Russians ever should decide to attack Yugoslavia, with things as they are now in Europe, they could attack from the north through their occupied zone of Austria; they could attack from the northeast through their satellite state of Hungary; they could attack to the southeast through their satellite states of Roumania and Bulgaria; and they might even make a small attack from the rear through their satellite state of Albania. Therefore, surely it is incumbent on the Leader of the Opposition, in speaking of such

an important thing as this, and such an important ally as is that country, to get his facts straight.
I went all over that country of Yugoslavia. I found a police state trying hard not to be a police state and trying hard to move over into a spirit that is something of the spirit of western democracy. I remember on a Sunday morning going up to this very Hungarian border with our military attache in Yugoslavia and seeing whole cities out on gas mask drill and civil defence drill. I remember seeing whole fields of boys, twelve-year-old boys, out under instructors having live rifle practice. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if ever it should come to pass, which God forbid, that we should have a third world war, and if the Russians or their allies should attack Yugoslavia, in my opinion, every man, woman and child in that gallant country would fight, and in my opinion we could have no more sincere ally, because no matter whatever else Yugoslavs are, they are determined to have their own national liberty and not to be run by any other country from any other source whatsoever.
May I now come to even more serious matters. I regard the statements made by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), for whom I have not only respect but a good deal of affection, as very serious. It is quite an honour to the hon. gentleman, who has for so many years sponsored in Canada this idea of a bill of human rights, to be singled out and invited to go over to Jerusalem to give a series of lectures on the bill of rights. His colleagues in his own party and his colleagues in this House of Commons can be proud of the honour paid to him in that respect. But what were we to think last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, when that great champion of human liberties and civil rights in Canada stood up in his place as the official foreign affairs expert for the great Conservative party and made such an astounding statement as is to be found on page 3340 of Hansard:
I hope and trust that in return for the benefits of the present that are apparent in finding markets for surpluses Canada will not rush into trade with the U.S.S.R. and will give every consideration to the perilous possibilities inherent in contributing in meeting ferment in the Soviet union to which the Kremlin has found no better answer than more repression and the tyranny of purges.
He goes on to develop that idea. If the speech means anything at all, the speech of the hon. member for Prince Albert means that Canada should not sell any food to any communist country. A little further down he said:
In my opinion there is no more strategic commodity in the world than the production of agriculture, for after all, as I am sure the Prime
External Affairs
Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) found as he travelled in Asia, the H-weapon of communism in Asia is hunger.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Prince Albert will live to be ashamed that he ever made such a foolish statement as that. I cannot understand how he could stand up in his place today and ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) for further information about how we are going to sell our surplus wheat. We have a whole one year's crop of wheat that we have not begun to sell yet, and yet the most enlightened man in the Progressive Conservative party, some people say the only progressive one in the whole party, the one real known progressive in the party, stands up in his place and says that this great country of Canada should not sell food to any communist country. As a Canadian I say "shame", and as the member for Vancouver South, whose prosperity depends upon our shipping, I say that we certainly do not want any policy of "no truck or trade with the communists." We want a policy of peace with every country on earth. We want commerce with every country on earth, and I for one believe the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell), the Conservative party's spokesman on finance, was on much more solid ground when he made reference during this session to the need for trade between Canada and all countries on earth.
I was also surprised at the conflict and contradiction between the arguments of the hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) because, speaking at four o'clock, I believe on Friday afternoon, the hon. member for Prince Albert suggested that Russia was in such a terribly bad way because of food shortage and famine. But speaking at 8.30 the same evening the hon. member for Eglinton raised a strong protest because the Canadian government did not protest more strongly because Russia was selling such immense quantities of food to Britain. The two arguments do not seem to fit together.
I must say I believe the most extraordinary argument of all was that advanced by the hon. member for Eglinton at the start of his speech when he made this statement, as reported at page 3355 of Hansard:
I must confess to not a little surprise and considerable regret that the Prime Minister, having now addressed the house twice on the subject of his tour of the world, including many of the important nations of the commonwealth, said not one word about the vital and beneficent role that the commonwealth is playing in the struggle for world peace today.
If there ever was a remarkable spectacle, certainly we saw it in the attitude of the spokesmen of the Conservative party in this
348S

External Affairs
debate. The once great party whose stock-in-trade, whose most fundamental of all principles, was this unswerving loyalty to the British commonwealth, and whose motivating idea was "at Britain's side whate'er betide" will now, I believe, have to rewrite its principles and perhaps have it say "at Dulles' heel for woe or weal." That surely must be the case if we can judge by the remarkable statements emanating from a Conservative party these days, because if ever a great leader contributed something to the welfare of that thing we call the commonwealth, and if ever a great leader of a great country in the commonwealth did make a speech about it on the old biblical principle "let others praise thee and not thine own mouth," then it was surely the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister is a great builder of a new commonwealth and he does not need to come home and make boasting speeches about what he did or did not do, and he certainly does not need to make vainglorious speeches about the commonwealth.
When I hear hon. gentlemen opposite, who used to be so fervent in their concrete expressions of practical policies designed to promote the welfare of the British commonwealth, and when I contrast their expressions now, which seem far more closely tied in with the United States and not with the British line at all, I ask myself, "Do the modern Conservatives of the year 1954 know what this thing the commonwealth is?" One would never know, judging by the expressions we hear in this house. We hear Conservatives taking a line diametrically opposed to the line proposed by most of the members of the commonwealth.
We all know that this thing the commonwealth is a strange organization. A cynic and wit once said "God protects drunks, idiots and the British Empire," and I believe that, in the light of the history of the past ten or fifteen years, when the war came to an end and people were predicting the liquidation or dissolution of what we call the British Empire, it would have taken a bold prophet to see the rise of these great new democracies of Asia which between them vastly outnumber all the rest of the commonwealth put together.
I wish our friends of the Conservative party who used to be so fervent about the British connection would give some thought to the real commonwealth which exists in this year of 1954, and not to the old British Empire which passed away with Colonel Blimp and Kipling in the last decade of the nineteenth century. The real commonwealth which exists this year is based on what? It is based on Britain; it is based on Canada; and of course Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. But the vast majority of the people of the
[Mr. Philpott.l
new commonwealth live in India, Pakistan and Ceylon, and when I hear hon. gentlemen making the kind of rash statements I have heard in this house in the past few days, that we should never recognize the government of China, which is in fact the government of China, then I think to myself, "I wish these people who are making these rash statements would go out and spend a few months in the countries which now constitute the new commonwealth. I wish they would spend a few months in India; a few months in Pakistan; a few months in Ceylon, Burma and Indonesia, and all of the new democracies in Asia."
Every one of these countries of Asia, which must be the anchor and the hope of any peaceful future in that part of the world, they would find without exception, wants the recognition of the real government of China, not because they have any love of communism, because in every single case every one of them has a fierce fight on the home front with their own local communists, but because it is in their interests that stability be established in that part of the world. It therefore seems to me that before people go off so much at half-cock and make these rash and ill-advised statements of the kind we have heard in this house over the past week, to the effect that we should not recognize China-and indeed one member went to the other extreme and talked openly of attack- they should consider the commonwealth as it is in fact and not talk of commonwealth loyalty in terms of theory.
Just one final word about the much-abused kicked-about thing we call appeasement. I confess that when I heard my old friend the Leader of the Opposition getting wrought up about whether we might possibly appease our enemy my mind went back to that very day when Mr. Chamberlain returned from Munich, because on that very day I was to speak to the Canadian Club of Edmonton. Two or three days later the gentleman who occupied the position now occupied by the Leader of the Opposition was to follow me on the same platform. When I rose to speak, Mr. Chamberlain had just returned from Munich waving his piece of paper and uttering these words: "Peace with honour, peace in our time."
After all, I was hired to give a speech on international affairs. When I rose at noon I said that it was not peace with honour, that it was not peace in our time and that within a very short time the certain effect of what was done at Munich would be a deal or, as I called it, a dicker between Russia and Germany, which came, as we all know, within a year. I will never forget the dear lady who

was the chairman sitting there beside the lieutenant governor of Alberta. When I came to the end of the speech and the dear lady had to rise and say something to wind up the meeting, she audibly groaned as she rose to her feet, as much as to say "What can I ever say after that?" Then about three days later the leader of the great Conservative party in Canada, the then leader of the opposition, stood on the same platform and pretty well blasted everyone all over the map for daring to oppose Mr. Chamberlain's wonderful plan of appeasement.
I think there has been no more abused word that this word "appeasement". No other word has been so kicked around since as has been this word "appeasement". I took the trouble to go back and study history to find where this word and this process which has come to be known as appeasement was first used. I think I found it because I traced it back about six thousand years. If anybody can take it back any farther than that, I will yield my place right now.
You will find the first use of the word "appease" in the very first book of the Bible. It is found in the book of Genesis, in dealing with the story of Jacob and Esau. We all remember that Jacob, who was a very smart operator, had put over a very fast trick on his brother Esau and had cheated him out of property that belonged to Esau or should have gone to Esau. Jacob made his getaway and after a great many years was coming back to meet his brother Esau. But as he began to come back to meet his brother Esau he began to fear for his own hide; he began to fear for his own neck. If you look it up in the book of Genesis, you will find that Jacob devised a very clever plan because he said, "I must appease my brother Esau"; and he sent him a whole series of presents. If you take it that appeasement is making some kind of reparation for a dirty trick that you have played on the enemy, I do not think that appeasement is such a terribly bad thing. But I do not believe that it now applies because I do not know of any terribly dirty thing that we have done to the communists, the Russians, the Chinese or anybody else.
When appeasement came up in the late thirties and when, I am sorry to say, leading members on both sides of this house were at the beginning very strongly in favour of appeasement, appeasement became a sort of perverted process whereby you bought a little bit of time for yourself by selling out your poor relations to your enemy, as was done in the case of Czechoslovakia. But let us never think for a moment that there is anything similar or equivalent to that in facing the facts. There is no appeasement if we go down the road of working out and trying to get an 83276-221i
External Affairs
honourable peace with those with whom, if there is failure to get that peace, we will be engaged in mortal combat within a very few years.
I for one, Mr. Speaker, have no idea whether or not we shall escape a third world war. I do not know. I would not bet any money on it. I think that the most likely outcome of the present armament race in which the great nations are engaged is a third world war. I cannot find a single case in history where an armament race ended in anything else but war. However, I know this. If through God's grace and our own intelligence we get a reprieve and if we call a halt to this mad and frantic armament race which is now speeding up to its last spasms, the world will have to take a different direction from that which has been indicated in some of the speeches made in this house in the past week. We shall have to sit down with the people that are and have been our enemies, and we shall have to try to reach a basis of live and let live.
Therefore if you ask me what I have to say about the question of recognition of red China, I say that it is not my responsibility to say anything about it this afternoon. I know this, though. It is wanted by all of our great partners out in Asia, on whom we depend and who are the real strength of this thing the commonwealth. After all, if we never agree on another thing, let us never forget that this thing called the commonwealth is still the greatest institution in the world today for the stability and security of all of us. It is greater even than NATO and all of these other organizations that you can talk about. Our partners in the commonwealth want the recognition of China on an honourable basis. I for one fervently hope and pray that in the next few months things will turn out so that it may be possible for us to take at least a real step, not only along that path but to work out a basis of honourable peace with our great neighbour across the Pacific, which is by far the mightiest nation in the whole world today, a nation which before the second world war bought 38 per cent of all the pulp produced by our biggest pulp and paper company in British Columbia, namely the Powell River Company Limited, and which could buy much more than that again if we had stable relations worked out. I hope and pray we shall go down the road which may lead to peace and not go down the road which, in my opinion, will certainly lead to war.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I rise only on a question of privilege. I want to make a reference to something that has been said merely for the purpose of keeping the record

External Affairs
sxraight, without in any way attempting to conduct a debate about the statements that have been made. I only wish that my regard otherwise tor the hon. member who has just spoken could carry itself to a similar regard for his memory. I would point out that there are sitting on this side of the house a number of hon. members who in the years immediately before the war demonstrated both their faith in the commonwealth and their belief in preparing for a war that seemed to be coming.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that the hon. gentleman's question of privilege arises out of something that took place during the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott)?


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I would not have risen if it had not.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If so, may I say this. I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South and I do not think that any question of privilege could arise.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enter into a debate with the Speaker but I am going to say emphatically that this is the first time I have heard any Speaker give a blank commendation of a speech that had just been given. I shall say no more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I say this. I merely carefully asked the Leader of the Opposition whether his question of privilege arose out of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I have listened carefully to the whole of that speech, and I do not think that any true question of privilege can arise. I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to citation 193 of Beauchesne's third edition, which reads in part as follows:
Members often raise so-called "questions of orivilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in the debates or the proceedings of the house.
I feel that anything that was said by the hon. member for Vancouver South could only be refuted, if necessary, at a future stage in the debate. I do not wish in any way to make a blanket ruling in advance because I very carefully asked the Leader of the Opposition what his question of privilege consisted of.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to extend the debate beyond pointing out that I have already spoken and therefore cannot reply, and that you are denying me the privilege of making the comments that I proposed to make.


Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose following the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott) in some of the statements he has made except to express my regret that he should quite incorrectly find fault with the official opposition for its stand as far as the commonwealth is concerned. He quite incorrectly stated that members of the official opposition used the word "never" in connection with the recognition of China. I do not recall that word having been used on this side at all. He also quite incorrectly said that some member of the official opposition suggested an attack on the communist countries. These statements were uncalled for and are not at all in accordance with the facts.
My purpose in rising at the present time is to direct my attention chiefly to one topic, the importance of Indo-China and its relation to NATO and the European defence community, and to support in that regard the stand taken by my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I think in the course of this debate our attention has not been sufficiently directed to the trouble spots of the world. The debate has ranged very far afield, and quite naturally, the subject being very large. But I had hoped that more particular attention would have been drawn to the trouble spots of the world. I had hoped that when the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) returned from his world trip he would have directed our attention to some of these trouble spots.
There have been other world travellers. It is only five or six months ago that the vicepresident of the United States made his world tour and returned to report that "everything depends on Indo-China". When the Prime Minister returned his reference to that particular part of the globe was not very extensive. I note that on page 3333 of Hansard of March 25 the Prime Minister, in mentioning the grave concern of the whole world with respect to the fighting going on in IndoChina, said:
I had the distinct impression that most ot the embarrassment felt by French leaders with respect to the European army was a consequence of the drain upon their human and material resources as a result of the fighting going on in Indo-China.
I suggest it was not necessary for the Prime Minister to go to Paris to gain that impression. I think it has been well recognized for the last two or three years that the troubles of France in Europe and in connection with NATO have arisen from her difficulties in Indo-China. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is well aware of that problem and pointed it out

to us last year. I wish that he had pointed it out as clearly again this year. Here is what he said just about a year ago when we had our debate on external affairs. His words will be found at page 1855 of Hansard of February 11, 1953.
But in Indo-China which, in some ways, is the most important part of this southeast Asian area, bitter fighting is still going on to keep this territory under nationalist but out of communist control. In a resolution adopted on December 17, 1952, the North Atlantic council expressed its wholehearted admiration for these efforts and acknowledged that the resistance of the free nations of southeast Asia was in fullest harmony with the aims and ideals of the Atlantic community, and agreed that the campaign waged by French union forces in Indo-China merited support from NATO members. Indeed there is a close strategic relationship not only between events in Korea and in Indo-China, but also between events in Indo-China and in western Europe, because events in Indo-China have a very important bearing on France's contribution to the defence of western Europe.
A day or two later the Secretary of State for External Affairs, speaking again in the debate, had this to say, as found on page 1865 of Hansard:
The latter problem of Indo-China, which we touched on yesterday and which is so important to the free world, was publicly recognized as such at the December meeting of the North Atlantic council; and I think it is at the root of French fears and hesitations in Europe at the present time.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you might contrast that attitude of 1953 with the attitude now in 1954. In the debate the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs, dealing with the subject of the Geneva conference, had this to say as found at page 3327 of Hansard:
At the Geneva conference there will also be discussed the question of Indo-China . . . this question should be discussed by representatives of France, the United Kingdom, the United States, the U.S.S.R., the Chinese People's Republic and other interested states. As hon. members know, the problem of Indo-China, where bitter fighting has been going on for eight years and is going on today, has never been submitted to the United Nations for consideration, and for that reason Canada has not been as directly concerned with this matter as we were with the aggression in Korea.
Speaking of the critical significance of this struggle, he says further:
... it affects the security of the neighbouring countries in southeast Asia and ... it affects the ability of France to make the maximum contribution to European and North Atlantic security and co-operative arrangements. And so, while we do not expect at Geneva to take any active part in discussion of Indo-China, we shall of course follow these talks with close interest and take advantage of any opportunity that may be afforded to us to help in bringing some satisfactory conclusion out of this particular matter.
External Affairs
At page 3358, in answer to a statement made by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), the Secretary of State for External Affairs intervened to say:
... I said a relatively minor part in the IndoChinese part of the conference.
My question is this: If in 1953 the situation in Indo-China and southeast Asia was of such vital importance to the people of the world and to the building up of NATO forces through France's contribution, why does the Secretary of State for External Affairs not take that attitude at the present time? He does not seem to me to take that attitude because at the Geneva conference we are going to stand on the sideline. If the opportunity is offered we may participate. Why do we not take an active part in the deliberations with regard to Indo-China? Is IndoChina not just as important now as it was a year ago? The whole thing, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out a year ago, is linked together. The drain on France's resources to support the war in Indo-China has restricted her power to participate in the formation of the European defence community.
Because France feels unable to participate to the full extent there, she is not so much interested in the participation of Germany. France has good reason to fear the build-up of the armed strength of Germany. The two-are closely related, France's effort in IndoChina and France's contribution to NATO. Yet, we are committed to NATO; we are-committed to act shoulder to shoulder with the other forces of the European defence army when it is set up, as the minister of external affairs pointed out in another address. Yet, what are we doing in order to ensure that France can play her full part in that organization of NATO on which we are basing all our hopes.
Now, could we not participate in this support of France on the same basis as the other nations, in order to get some sort of settlement in Indo-China, for our own self interest regarding NATO and EDC. Let us consider for a moment what the war in Indo-China really means. The forces involved are large. It has been estimated there are about 400,000 on each side. The casualties have been heavy.
I do not know what they are at the present time, but a year ago the casualties to the French forces alone were 40,000 killed and
50,000	wounded. The struggle is in its eighth year. It was obscured for some considerable time by the Korean conflict, but has been on the same scale with regard to effort and casualties and it is of the same importance.

External Affairs
It was not brought before the United Nations, so says the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and because of that Canada has not been as directly concerned as Canada was with Korea. We recall that the Korean trouble came before the United Nations security council at a time when Russia was abstaining from attendance. What prospect would there be of getting a United Nations decision with regard to Indo-China unless similar circumstances prevailed? Merely because the war in Indo-China has not been brought directly to the attention of the United Nations, are we not directly concerned with it? What is the difference between the struggle in Korea and the struggle in Indo-China?
We thought that if the war in Korea was lost the future of the western world in Asia would be very obscure. Would it not also be difficult if the war in Indo-China were lost? Here is a suggestion with regard to that from that writer on international affairs, Joseph Alsop, writing on November 27, 1953 in the Montreal Gazette. In this article, which I will not quote at length, he states that in view of the aid which communist forces in IndoChina have been receiving from communist [DOT]China, the struggle on the part of the French, 'Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia is made [DOT]extremely difficult. Then he throws in the suggestion that if the communist forces acquire jet planes it would mean the end of French air power in Indo-China. He suggests that pilots are already being trained in China for that purpose.
Writing on January 14 of this year, the same reporter says this, and I shall quote directly:
Indo-China has already taken on the role of an Asian Czechoslovakia-the position that cannot be let go without disastrous consequences. If IndoChina is allowed to fall, while the Chinese power build-up continues without interruption, we shall almost certainly have to make the kind of choice in Asia which his follies finally forced upon Neville Chamberlain in Europe. And even if this quite probably worst does not happen in the end, just where does the present picture in Asia show proof of a recaptured initiative.
The situation is obviously quite serious in Indo-China. It was pointed up last night by the speech made by Mr. Dulles. This is the .statement in the Gazette for today:
State Secretary Dulles said tonight the free world *should take ''united action" to prevent communist conquest of Indo-China and all southeast Asia.
"This might involve serious risks", he said. "But these risks are far less than those that will face us a few years from now if we dare not be resolute today".
Then he goes on to say:
"Communist control of southeast Asia could carry a grave threat to the Philippines, Australia and New Zealand with whom we have treaties of mutual assistance," he said.

"The entire western Pacific area, including the so-called off-shore island chain, would be strategically endangered."
Then he goes on to mention the assistance it has been proven the communist forces in Indo-China are receiving from communist China. Surely all these things add up to the fact that southeast Asia is the greatest trouble spot in the world today and that we are in as great danger there as we were in Korea. There is no question that the success of the communist forces in IndoChina would leave a threat to other portions of southeast Asia and that area is the rice producing area of Asia and provides the greater part of that staple food.
There is no question but that pressure could be exercised without any resort to total war in the nature of a third world war on an atomic scale. Now, what is Canada's position with regard to this? I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock,
the house will proceed with the consideration of private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John Decore (Vegreville) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 389, respecting Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited.


Howard Charles Green: Could we have an explanation from the sponsor?


John Decore: Some three years ago, Mr. Speaker, parliament passed an act to incorporate Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited. The purpose of the bill before us now is to amend this private act so as to increase the capital stock of the company from five million shares with a par value of one dollar per share to ten million shares of the same par value, and to add one million preferred shares at $50 par value for each share.
Now, it is hoped that this bill will be referred to the appropriate standing committee and hon. members will be able then to have more opportunity to become better acquainted with the proposed capitalization increase, the method of financing this gigantic project, as well as the program for the construction of a line for the servicing of all the towns and cities from the province of Alberta to the province of Quebec. This afternoon I can only outline to the house the general position of this bill and give a brief account of the progress made in the realization of this great national project.
This bill provides, first of all, for doubling the number of common shares, and it adds $50 million of preferred shares. This increase

in capitalization is designed, first of all, to enlarge the structure of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited in order that it may take over the project of Western Pipe Lines, as well as to finance and to build a pipe line from Niagara to Toronto pursuant to the agreement recently concluded. Of course copies of this agreement will be available to members of the committee.
I think all hon. members are aware of the amalgamation that took place between Western Pipe Lines and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines early this year under the guidance and supervision of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). Both these companies are now equal partners in Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, with Western Pipe Lines as a wholly owned subsidiary. The combined group are dedicated to the building of the all-Canadian line first.
I understand there is an application to the conservation board in Alberta which is now being heard and considered by that body, and an early export licence from Alberta is anticipated. As soon as that is received, Trans-Canada Pipe Lines will proceed to the board of transport commissioners with an application to construct the line. When that permission has been granted the company will then be in a position to enter into firm contracts for the sale of gas to the utility companies or boards in the towns and cities along the route. At the same time the company will negotiate contracts for the purchase of gas from the producers in Alberta and Saskatchewan. Then the company will be in a position to arrange financing, both equity financing and bond borrowing, and commence construction.
It is significant to note that parallel developments will take place, not only in the producing areas of Alberta and Saskatchewan but also in the eastern towns and cities where the gas is going to be marketed. In the producing areas gathering systems must be constructed. Production wells must be drilled in proven fields that now have only two or three wells. Treatment plants must be built in wet gas fields to recover the sulphur, distillate, propane and other by-products of gas production. At the same time, in the many towns and cities across Canada gas utilities must be organized or expanded to distribute the gas to the householders and industries in their areas. All told, this parallel development it is estimated will be more than twice the cost of the main transmission line.
The all-Canadian line is to be organized, financed and built independently of any probable subsequent export of surplus gas
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to the United States. Ample reserves of gas exist in Alberta and Saskatchewan today, I am informed, to take care of the needs of those two provinces as well as the needs of the trans-Canada pipe line for many years to come-more than enough to amortize the investment required. Every week brings news of additional discoveries.
I am sure the house will be pleased to hear that the apparent conflict between the trans-Canada project and the proposal to bring gas from Louisiana to Toronto has now been resolved. Under an agreement concluded last week, the line from Niagara to Toronto will be built by the Trans-Canada company and leased to the Niagara Gas Transmission Company, until the Trans-Canada line is built to Toronto. At the same time Consumers Gas will cease taking American gas and will take Trans-Canada gas. In this way the immediate needs of Toronto will be taken care of, and the market will be built up in preparation for the Alberta gas in two or three years' time. Of course company witnesses and copies of the agreement will be available before the committee, and we can go into detail at that time.
In conclusion I should like to say that the proposed pipe line from Alberta to the province of Quebec is another link in the binding together of this great nation of ours, Canada. The transcontinental railway was the first. No great development, least of all one of national importance, is achieved without the expenditure of tremendous effort. When the Trans-Canada pipe line is built and serving with fuel and energy more than 2,200 miles of agricultural, mining and industrial backbone of this rapidly developing nation, I think hon. members will have reason to feel proud of this achievement.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying that my colleagues and I support this bill which, as you know, is designed to revamp the capital structure of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines better to meet the need in carrying out a major, gas pipe line construction reaching eastward from Alberta. The company is the chosen instrument of the Alberta and Canadian governments to carry out the proposed pipe line project. It is of the private enterprise variety of chosen instrument-another reason we support it, for we do not think pipe lining is any business for the government to get into.
The new Trans-Canada company is a merger of the two former major competitors for the right to build a pipe line east from Alberta. In fact, you might call it a shotgun wedding, demanded by the Alberta
34S2

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited government and supported by the federal government, through which two competitors had to kiss and make up, quit fighting each other, and proceed as a team to get a pipe line built.
One partner in the merger was Western Pipe Lines, backed by western Canadian interests. Its plan was for a 30-inch pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg, thence by 24-inch line to Minneapolis, where an established market waits. The plan, I may add, had more economic than political merit.
The other partner was the old Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, backed by the Clint Murchison interests in Texas. Its plan was for a 30-inch pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada, via an all-Canadian route, leaving out in the cold the United States mid-west market. The plan had more political than economic merit.
For several good reasons-some of which I have already hinted at, plus the vital fact that neither plan was big enough to take care of surplus gas being developed in the west-the two projects were merged into the new Trans-Canada company. At present the combined plan calls for a 36-inch pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg, the largest diameter gas pipe line in the world and capable of ultimately carrying about twice as much gas as a 30-inch. From Winnipeg a 24-inch line would reach southward towards Minneapolis, and a 30-inch line would reach east into Ontario and Quebec.
While I have no information from the company to support the statement, I would suggest that by the time construction actually gets under way it may be deemed advisable to expand the diameter of the pipe lines south and east from Winnipeg, to facilitate expanded sales not only in eastern Canada but also in American markets both midwest and eastern.
As presently contemplated, the transmission system would start in the eastern border of Alberta, and would cost about $297 million. This is far from being a measure, however, of the over-all cost. In addition, there would have to be, first, an investment, probably running to over $150 million, by oil companies in western Canada for the drilling of gas wells, the construction of processing facilities and field gathering lines. Second, an investment ultimately reaching over $40 million, in an Alberta-wide trunk pipe line system to carry the gas from the fields to the eastern border of that province, where Trans-Canada would receive it. This Alberta gathering system would be privately financed and controlled permanently in Alberta under the Alberta gas trunk pipe line company act
[Mr. Nickle.l

recently passed by the legislature. The principal owners will be gas producers. The interests of Alberta gas consumers and utility companies, the export pipe lines and the Alberta public will be protected by representation on the board. I believe, sir, that the only government investment will be $10 by the Alberta government for two voting shares, to be used by the two nominees of that government to the board of that company. This gathering system will of course ultimately serve gas to Alberta utility companies and to other export companies, in addition to Trans-Canada.
Other than the export pipe line, the other major items of related investment would include, first, a transmission pipe line from the Manitoba border to Minneapolis, to be built by Northern Natural Gas Company, the twin cities utility, to connect up with Trans-Canada Pipe Lines at Emerson, Manitoba.
Second, the construction of new and the expansion of existing gas distribution systems in the cities and towns to be served by the transportation system. This would require at least $100 million during the first few years alone. Finally, a direct investment by home, commercial and industrial consumers in appliances and other equipment with which to use gas. This also would require at least $100 million during the first few years alone. All these items add up to the staggering total of some $750 million. When we add to that the same kind of costs related to other proposed gas projects, to the Canadian and United States Pacific coast, to the inland empire and Montana, the total stacks up to around $1,250 million required to be raised and spent ovey the next five to six years, if the projects now contemplated are to be achieved.
We all know that money does not grow on trees; nor can we get it by simply rolling out printing presses. To get the moneys required for the projected natural gas plans there must be incentive provided, either through the basic economic soundness of the phase of the project in which the producer, the transmission company, the distributor, the consumer or investors are asked to put their money, or by such degree of government subsidies as might be needed to produce sufficient incentive.
Obviously, Canada's interests can better be served by the basic economic soundness of great projects like these related to natural gas, rather than by a policy of subsidization. Therefore, sir, it seems to me essential that in considering this particular bill we reappraise Canada's gas policy in an effort to achieve a maximum degree of economic

soundness with a minimum of subsidy or even elimination of the need of subsidy. By "subsidy" I refer to all its forms; those borne by the taxpayer, directly or indirectly; those borne by the producers through lower prices for their products, and those borne by consumers through higher prices.
The first step in such a reappraisal should be acceptance by this government, by this parliament and by the Canadian public of the fact that an all-Canadian gas pipe line policy confined to Canadian routes and Canadian markets is not economically feasible. To carry out such a policy would impose a heavy burden upon taxpayers, producers and consumers, with the extent of the burden on the last two groups being determined by the portions levied upon taxpayers generally. It is a fact that none of us is a magician. We cannot merely by waving a flag, even the flag of Canada, make economic facts disappear; nor can we make them disappear by simply ignoring their existence.
I recall that last summer the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent) visited Alberta and spoke about his government's decision in support of a strictly all-Canadian gas pipe line. He used these words:
Eastern Canada is entitled to the benefits of cheap Alberta gas.
His use of the words "cheap gas", which I trust he would now put in the category of other words he recently was quoted as using in the Far East, naturally left a widespread impression in Canada that an all-Canadian line was economic, and that Alberta gas would actually be cheap in the east. Both impressions are erroneous.
I am confident that the Prime Minister spoke in good faith on the basis of information given him, as did others who spoke on the subject last spring and summer. The basis of his statement was perhaps the case presented by the old Trans-Canada Pipe Line Company, which was ably pressed by their press agents in eastern Canada for a lengthy period. The sound economics of that case were based, first, on a market build-up in eastern Canada on a substantially faster rate than such authorities as eastern utility companies thought possible; with a price to the utilities ranging from 55 cents to 57 cents per thousand cubic feet. Second, the sale of more than half of the gas transported to eastern Canadian industries at a price of 45 cents per thousand cubic feet, a price at least 25 per cent higher than other authorities believed the maximum competitive price to be. Third, purchase of the gas in Alberta at a price netting the producer about one-third less than the price proposed for the Winnipeg-Minneapolis plan.
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited
I might add that representatives of the old Trans-Canada company, during questioning before the Alberta oil and gas conservation board a year ago, testified that the price to Alberta producers could be raised to a level at least equal to that offered by the proposed Winnipeg-Minneapolis line if the Canadian government granted concessions. As you doubtless know, the conservation board concluded that a case for the economic soundness of the project, on terms favourable to Alberta, had not been made. The Alberta government, after receipt of the board's conclusions which showed a large gas surplus available for export, directed the merger of the old Trans-Canada and Western companies.
It was last spring too that the Canadian Gas Association, made up of distributors of natural and artificial gas across Canada, passed a resolution urging the Canadian government to make a thorough economic study before finally setting a national gas policy. That association noted that it feared that the suggested all-Canadian pipe line would require payment of substantial subsidies.
Just over a year ago another study was made of the all-Canadian project on behalf of Western Pipe Lines by an internationally known engineering and economic firm, Stone and Webster. Let me quote certain of their conclusions:
In early years, only a relatively small volume of sales could be guaranteed by firm long-term contracts with distributing utilities. This condition alone renders the large scale sale of securities impossible.
We have nevertheless projected the operations of the pipe line for five years on an assumed financial plan and with the maximum level of revenues believed to be attainable. This projection indicates a lack of earning power in the fifth and prior years to support the financial program.
We made a further test to determine the minimum revenues that would be required for any bare hope of financial feasibility. Competitive conditions preclude the collection of such revenues.
The report finally states:
The most favourable of conditions have been assumed throughout our study. Less favourable conditions would result in an even poorer economic picture.
This is not the only information available as to the economic soundness or lack thereof of a strictly all-Canadian route and market pipe line. The objective comparative study of pipe line routes and market combinations made a year ago by Stanford University and the University of Western Ontario rated the strictly all-Canadian project the least economic of half a dozen alternatives.
The Bechtel Corporation, one of the world's great pipe line, engineering and construction
3494	HOUSE OF
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited firms, also made three independent studies last year. One of its conclusions was:
It is believed that a natural gas pipe line to eastern Canada, originating in Alberta and with a designed capacity of 300 million cubic feet per day, would be so marginal as to be unlikely of private financing.
I have used these statements, not to condemn the idea of a great pipe line reaching from Alberta to eastern Canada but to emphasize the reasons for my belief that we must reappraise our national gas policy in the light of economic facts, and to try to work out a better method of achieving the great objectives of building up our proved oil and gas resources in western Canada, getting gas to as many Canadians as possible as fast as possible, and securing the longterm needs for Canada with the least possible burden upon the producers, consumers and taxpayers of Canada.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is a man of great talent, energy and bluntness. He has established a reputation for facing up to issues. I trust that he will, during this debate, face up in full to the facts regarding a Canadian gas policy. He did not face facts when he indicated to the press after the merger of the Trans-Canada and Western Pipe Lines companies that the line to eastern Canada had priority, that no gas would go to the United States until supply to our east was secured, and that gas would go to Minneapolis only on an interruptible basis. Surely he is fully aware of the various economic studies of the all-Canadian line to which I have referred. Surely also he knows that the tying in of Minneapolis improves the economics of an ultimate line to eastern Canada, and that the large financial investment required by the Minneapolis company in order to take Canadian gas dictates that it must be a firm, not an interruptible supply.
Surely the minister, unless he is prepared to considerably modify his gas policy, must have a different answer than a flat "no" to the three questions I asked him in the house on March 24. These questions were:
Has the government made any commitments, verbal or in writing, for the provision of tax concessions, tax remissions, or any other form of subsidy in order to make financially feasible a trans-Canada gas pipe line in the form apparently desired by this government? If so, what are those subsidies? If not, does the government intend to extend such subsidies?
I recognize that the minister has already made some modification of his all-Canadian stand of a year ago. He has supported, as I did, the import of American gas to Toronto- subject of course to a cut-off when Canadian gas eventually reaches the east. Aside from getting gas to Toronto at the very least two
[Mr. Nickle.l

years earlier than gas from the west, the resultant build-up of the top-class, top-price consumer markets-that of household space heating, water heating and cooking-will also improve the economics of the eventual pipe line from western Canada.
I might add at this point that not all the governments in Canada's east look at the gas problem through rose-tinted glasses. The Ontario government has been making its own economic studies in recent months. It wants to have access in time to gas from western Canada to help meet the expanding fuel needs of Ontario. But here is what Mr. Dana Porter, Ontario's attorney general and chairman of its gas survey, said in the provincial parliament on March 20:
It is impossible to visualize gas coming from Alberta exceedingly cheap. If it can be sold at the equivalent price or slightly less than coal and oil now, and if it can be sold in large enough quantity, they might be able to pay for the pipe line.
Today, sir, there are four major suggestions on which, I believe, this government of Canada should clarify its position; steps that could be taken to establish a more economic national gas policy. The first of these is the building of a pipe line from Alberta to eastern Canada in two stages instead of one, with the first consisting of a 36-inch line to Winnipeg with a 24- or 30-inch connection to Minneapolis. Sufficient gas would be committed on a firm basis to ensure capture of this market, provide a faster outlet than eastern Canada for the west's growing surplus, a satisfactory price to producers, and improve the economics of stage two, a line from Winnipeg to eastern Canada.
Secondly, enlargement of gas imports from the United States into eastern Canada to the fullest extent possible on a reasonably shortterm basis to supplement the current imports to southwest Ontario, the coming imports to Toronto, and thus permit a rapid extension of gas service to more communities in Ontario and Quebec. The market build-up achieved would further improve the economics of the ultimate system from western Canada. Between them Tennessee Transmission Company and Panhandle Eastern Pipe Lines, one of which will reach Canada at Niagara, while the other already enters Canada at Windsor, have a gas transporting capacity of over 80 billion cubic feet yearly, not now committed to their American customers. Within a few years the growing demand of American consumers along these pipe lines should absorb a large part of this capacity. Meantime, why not use that American capacity to build up gas markets in eastern Canada?
Third, a reappraisal of the proposed routes between Winnipeg and eastern Canada. The

south route, following the present interprovincial oil pipe line, is definitely the most economic. Compared to a line north of lake Superior to Toronto and doubling back to the Sarnia area where essential gas storage fields are located, the southerly system would cost as much as $35 million less. It would also be in a better position to expand markets in mass-populated areas in the United States. The all-Canadian route would make a difference of two to three cents per thousand cubic feet in transport costs, which would have to be assessed back against western producers in the form of lower wellhead prices, since competition with other fuels will impose a tight ceiling on the selling price of gas in the east. If it is established that national interest really requires the more expensive route, the added cost should be a charge against the nation as a whole, not a charge alone against the producers of the west and their provincial government partners.
Fourth, a getting together at top level of government officials in Ottawa and Washington in an earnest effort to work out a continental plan on gas that will provide Cana-dian-American co-operation to ensure the most economic matching possible of gas reserves to markets irrespective of their nationality, with equal security of supply provided to consumers whether or not in the country of origin.
Such a plan could speed the capturing by Canadian gas of essential markets in the Pacific northwest and thus permit the construction of Westcoast Transmission. It could speed the capture by Canadian gas of essential markets in the Rocky mountain and mid-west states, which would result in benefits by way of expansion of development of western Canada's still scarcely-tapped resources. It would ensure improved economics for a pipe line to eastern Canada by use of a short-term supply of American gas in our own east and it would open the door ultimately for sale of further surplus Canadian gas into the northeastern United States.
Mr. Speaker, these general proposals I have outlined I believe recognize the realities of gas reserve and market prospects in Canada and the United States. Western Canada, for example, has been expanding its proved gas reserves at a rate of over four trillion cubic feet a year. If incentives to explore- and by incentives I mean markets and fair prices-are provided, continued rapid growth of reserves is expected to continue for many years. I might say that every one to two years western Canada is discovering enough gas to supply one major pipe line project for at least twenty years. There is every reason
Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited to expect that ultimate reserves could be large enough to serve all markets, Canadian and American, within economic reach of our western gas fields for far more years than any of us needs to worry about.
The United States, while possessing far larger gas reserves than Canada, has a present and future gas market that is proportionately even larger. Its own long-term security of gas supply will be assisted, and not injured, by any steps the United States may now take to speed the growth of western Canadian gas reserves. Such steps could include opening the doors of nearest United States markets to Canadian gas, in solving the problem of eastern Canadian gas supply by a relative short-term dedication of American gas to Ontario and Quebec in sufficient volume to service the mass population region of our east, and provide a market build-up in readiness for an ultimate Canadian gas supply.
I believe that this general plan recognizes that a long-term commitment of sufficient American gas to supply all of eastern Canada would be less preferable to American consumers along the Tennessee Transmission and Panhandle Eastern pipe line systems, whose own gas hunger is expanding rapidly, than a short-term commitment that would be followed up by access in time to new Canadian sources of supply to their customers.
The plan outlined for solution of Canada's gas problem is, I believe, not only practicable but is economically sound, and I believe politically feasible. It would open markets faster, at the best possible prices, for western Canadian gas, thus stimulating western oil and gas development and speeding growth of proved oil reserves for the long-term needs of all markets within economic reach. It would get Canadian gas to British Columbia and the northwest United States in a hurry and at competitive costs. It would get Alberta gas to southern Saskatchewan, Manitoba and into the Minneapolis area at prices fair to both producer and consumer in a little over one year. It would get American gas into eastern Canada in large volume within a year. It would cut about $200 million from the immediate capital requirements for pipe line construction and it would make all the projects more economically sound. It would pave the way for an Alberta-eastern Canada pipe line connection a few years hence on a very much sounder basis than is possible today. It would raise the value of our western gas reserves by tens of millions of dollars. It would cut the cost to Canadian consumers, and to American consumers too, by more tens of millions of

Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited dollars. It would cut to a minimum, and perhaps even eliminate, the cost of subsidies to Canadian taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the actual working out of details of such a long-range plan would naturally require a meeting of minds between the owners of existing pipe lines that would be involved and the backers of proposed pipe lines, as well as between the gas producing and distributing companies. It would require a meeting of minds between the various provincial governments concerned as producers of gas or consumers, and the Canadian government. Finally, it would require a meeting of minds at top level between the Canadian and the United States governments.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion may I read a resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Progressive Conservative party a week or so ago in Ottawa. This resolution passed by the Conservative association reads as follows:
We support, generally, development of pipe lines and markets for western Canadian oil, natural gas and by-products on the soundest economic basis, with due regard to security of supply for Canadians; but to the extent that national interest may dictate market planning other than the most economic, we believe the nation as a whole should bear the burden, and that this should not be assessed only upon producers and consumers in western Canada.


Mr, Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as various pipe lines bills have been brought before the house, we of this group have made it clear that in our view there are two principles that should be pursued. In the first place, it has been our contention that a Canadian pipe line should be built so as to serve Canadian needs and interests first. In the second place, we have made it clear that in our view gas and oil pipe lines should be publicly owned. We have presented that view to the house on several occasions in the form of amendments setting out both of those principles and we still feel that those principles should be followed.
When the bill incorporating Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited was presented to this house in 1951, second reading of that bill was moved on February 27 by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore), who is the sponsor of the bill now before us. It was my privilege on that occasion to speak for our group. I expressed our pleasure that the first principle I enunciated a moment ago was being implemented by the terms of the bill, namely that it was to be an all-Canadian pipe line; but I expressed our regret that the second principle to which we adhere was not being carried out.


It is still our view that this pipe line should be brought under public ownership. That was our view when we were somewhat at the academic stage with respect to the building of pipe lines in this country. As we approach the time when these long distance pipe lines will be built and when gas and oil will be transmitted through them, we feel even more strongly that these should be the subject of public ownership.
In closing his remarks today the hon. member for Vegreville expressed the view that once this pipe line was built the Canadian people would have reason to be proud of it. I submit that the Canadian people would have much more reason to be proud of a pipe line of this nature if it were owned by the Canadian people themselves.
So far as this particular bill is concerned, we will not raise any objection to the matter involved in connection with it and the other one related to it being studied by the committee to which this bill will be referred. I understand that an agreement has been reached between Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, the Niagara company and the others involved. We hope that agreement will be very carefully scrutinized by the committee and that every effort will be made to make sure that the interests of the consumers of Canada are protected as well as they can be protected under a policy of private ownership. However, it is our view that this business calls for public ownership, and even as there have been some conversions in this House of Commons in the matter of pipe line policy we hope there will yet be a complete conversion to our policy of public ownership.


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, we all listened with interest once again to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Nickle) expound his one-man policy for the development of the natural gas reserves of Canada on a continental basis rather than a strictly or partially national basis. He quoted many authorities and different surveys that have been conducted by engineering firms. He also mentioned the report by the Stanford research institute, and if I understood him correctly he implied that that report also stated that it was uneconomical to supply Alberta gas to eastern Canada. This report was prepared by the Stanford research institute for Imperial Oil Limited and the date is March, 1953. I would refer the hon. member for Calgary South and other hon. members to page 48. The first heading on this page is: "What is the market for competi-

tively priced natural gas in Ontario and Quebec?" The report goes on to say:
An estimated market for 87 billion cubic feet of natural gas exists in Ontario and Quebec at a price competitive with alternate types of fuel. This size of market assumes the fifth year of operation of a natural gas pipe line able to deliver gas in sufficient quantity to satisfy demand as it develops. The competitive price of natural gas is found to be 65 cents per thousand cubic feet at the city gate, or $1.01 per thousand cubic feet delivered to the average user.
The next heading is: "What is the most economic source of gas for these markets?" The report reads:
The most economic source of gas for supplying eastern Canada approximately 87 billion cubic feet *per year is the gas fields of southern Alberta.
There is an elaboration of that statement which I will not take the time of the house to put on Hansard. The next heading is: "What are the most economic outlets for Alberta natural gas reserves?" The report reads as follows:
The most economic outlet for southern Alberta gas is eastern Canada. The most economic outlet for northern Alberta gas is the Pacific northwest.
I put this on the record, Mr. Speaker, because from what the hon. member for Calgary South said the house may have gained the wrong impression about this report.


Carl Olof Nickle: Will the minister permit a question?


George Prudham: Yes.


Carl Olof Nickle: Is it not correct that the average selling price in eastern Canada cited in the Stanford survey is 65 cents per thousand cubic feet which compares with a price of approximately 53 cents for United States gas at Toronto and 35 cents for United States gas now delivered to the Union Gas Company at Windsor? Would he explain just how the very substantial differential in price would be overcome, between 35 and 53 in one case for United States gas and 65 cents in the other case for Canadian gas?


George Prudham: I am not aware that the price of Panhandle gas has yet been established.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, we in the province of British Columbia are very much concerned about a national gas policy. I was very interested to hear the statement the minister read from the Stanford report that one of the best markets for northern Alberta gas is the Pacific northwest. We in the lower mainland of British Columbia feel that if we are going to have anything like a national gas policy this is the time to use our bargaining power with the gas interests of the United States. We feel that eastern Canada should not be permitted to import United States gas until such
Industrial Status of Women time as we have received a favourable decision and the Pacific northwest of the United States is permitted to import Canadian gas. If a trans-Canada gas pipe line is built to eastern Canada and Alberta gas flows east, and if a satisfactory decision is not reached in Washington, we are afraid that all we can hope for is that the southern states interests will export natural gas to the lower mainland area and all the rest of British Columbia will be left without natural gas. At no time in the years to come will it then be worth while for anyone to build a gas pipe line from northern Alberta to the lower mainland.
We believe that the only way we can have economical distribution of gas throughout British Columbia is if a pipe line is built from northern Alberta through British Columbia to the lower mainland and to serve the great cities of the Pacific northwest. I know that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is a very capable businessman when it comes to the business affairs of the nation, and I hope he will not forget that one-tenth of the people of Canada live on the other side of the Rocky mountains.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, March 19, consideration of the motion of Mrs. Fair-clough for the second reading of Bill No. 2, to provide equal pay for equal work for women.
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Ont.):: Mr. Speaker, in taking part in this debate I assure you I will not be long because I would not want to be accused of talking out the measure. I would rather see a vote taken on it. I am sure that it will carry because I think there are very few male members of the house who would dare to stand up and say that they should have more money than the female members.
In my remarks today I should like to try to adduce a point in favour of the bill. I am going to start with the doctors, because in my own riding we have two lady members of that profession. I am sure that the people to whom they are administering would be happy to have me say that these female doctors are as good as the average male doctor in any other part of the country. Certainly, they fill a very important requirement in our area.
Then, we come to the teachers. Some people have said that teachers are underpaid

Industrial Status of Women in some provinces and female teachers are paid less than male teachers. This is not true of the teachers in Ontario because there is a law that all teachers start at the same minimum salary, whether male or female. Then, you go to the factory workers. I have been in a good many factories throughout this country and I say that there should be equal pay for equal work. Recently I made a trip to Montreal with a committee on defence production and I saw many girls working on small pieces of electrical equipment, winding little wires on little gadgets. I am sure that with their small hands and nimble fingers they were more adept at doing that job than any male could possibly be.
One of our writers, I think in a publication called Tempest, said that some of our secretaries were getting too large for their bloomers. Well, there would be just as much reason for saying that some of the heads of the members of the press gallery are getting too large for their shirts. Turning to the House of Commons, we all know that over the last few years the female member who has been here the longest has won her spurs and has proven herself as good as any of the male members. We can cross the floor of the house to the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mrs. Shipley). A few days ago she made a speech and proved to my satisfaction that she knew more about the mining industry than the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy).
All these people I have mentioned, all these professions and this labour, are receiving the same pay. Is there any member in this house who will stand up and vote against this motion under those circumstances? Is there any member who would stand up and say we should receive more salary than the female members of this house? The same principle applies to this bill and to every aspect you could mention of labour or the professions in this Canada of ours. I shall not talk this bill out, Mr. Speaker, but will provide the opportunity to have a vote on it now.


Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: As the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has said, I think it would be difficult for many of the men here to vote against the bill now before us. In fact, I believe you could sum it up by saying that there should be no relationship between the amount of money you receive and whether you wear your pants inside or outside.
The difference between the rates of pay for men and women has an historic basis. In the past women were not capable of doing


the heavy work which represented such a large portion of the labour then required. As a result there was very little opportunity for them to find jobs to occupy. Today the situation has changed completely. There is a *constantly lessening demand for heavy labour and there is a constantly increasing demand for light labour, highly qualified labour or labour dealing with technical skill requiring a certain amount of delicacy of touch. In this field women are certainly the equivalent of the men.
Now, one of the problems that is going to accompany the introduction of a measure such as this, and the gradual changeover which will result, is the difficulty of defining exactly what is an equal job. Industry and commerce will have to carefully study each job and do a lot of job evaluation and analysis because at this time we find people doing work which is approximately similar in nature receiving varying rates of pay. This is primarily because we have never sufficiently studied job evaluation and determined the exact skills required for the job.
Another point is-


Mr. Gillis:: Why talk out your bill? Why do you not let it pass?


William McLean Hamilton: I am going to move the adjournment of the debate in a moment. Well, Mr. Speaker, since it is now six o'clock perhaps I should move the adjournment of the debate now.
On motion of Mr. Hamilton the debate was adjourned.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed 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.
Gordon Minto Churchill: External Affairs
native troops to carry on the resistance themselves. The population of Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia, amounting to 28 millions, would provide available manpower if native troops were trained.
Should we give assistance along that line, or could we give more assistance to France in Europe? Can we make commitments there to indicate that we will not withdraw our troops so long as they are required in the NATO force in Europe? Should we provide more than a brigade? Should we raise our quota-again thinking in terms of aid to France?
I suggest those are matters that should be taken into consideration. I suggest further that we can aid France by taking our full part around the conference table at Geneva. I take issue with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he suggests that we would play a rather minor role there, in so far as Indo-China is concerned, and that we would be only observers. Why should we not play a full part by sitting down with other nations at that conference table and giving our support to our allies at the conference? Why must we stand on the sidelines? We are called upon, when world crises crop up, to play a major part. Canada has never been hesitant about that. We have stepped right out on the stage; we have never stayed in the wings when armed conflict has occurred in the world. Why should we not then play the same part at the conference table?
On occasion we are rather inclined to believe that as a small nation we cannot play a major part. But small nations in the history of the world have often played a decisive part in the course of events. We have only to look back at the small state of Athens when they opposed the great Persian empire; we have only to look at the small Roman republic which fought against the great Carthaginian empire in the three Punic wars. However, consider Great Britain with a population of between 8 and 10 million at the time of the Napoleonic wars. She stood up against the armed forces of Europe in a twenty-year struggle; or for that matter Canada's action in the Kaiser's war of 1914-18 and Hitler's war of 1939 to 1945, a small nation playing an important and in some instances a decisive part in those conflicts. We can supply not only munitions of war and food but fighting troops, which are not second-line troops under any conditions. They have always been first-line shock troops. Therefore a small nation is not necessarily prohibited from an active part either in war or in peace.
During the times of uneasy peace such as are prevailing now, and such as prevailed in

the 1930's, Canada has not played its full part. I hope that we shall be more active at the conference table in international affairs. Small nations have shown what can be done under inspired leadership. You think readily of Smuts of South Africa, a small nation; but he was a commanding figure in international affairs in the first world war and subsequent to that. We think of our own Sir Robert Borden playing an active part, representing a small nation and playing an active part in the imperial conference during the first world war and at the peace conference that succeeded it. Therefore we can play our full part in the days of uneasy peace just as we did play our full part in time of war.
I therefore urge upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Canada be represented at the conference table at Geneva when this subject of Indo-China is under consideration for the reasons that I have already pointed out. It is our own interest. We want to assist France, because if we assist France, then France assists us in forming a barrier against any possible aggression in Europe and of course elsewhere in the world.
You may say we cannot afford too many more commitments; that we are sufficiently committed at the present time; but we have seriously to consider whether it is not more important to make commitments in order to prevent war than to be obliged, when war breaks out, to enter into the thing partially prepared. We have had that experience twice in our history. Let us not repeat it.
Finally, let me say this: Canada has a major part to play in the councils of the world. She has demonstrated in the past in warfare the part that she can play effectively. She should demonstrate now at the conference table that she can play just as effective a part toward the prevention of war, which is really our main objective.


Mr. F. S. Zaplitny (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, most of the debate so far has centred around the question of the recognition of China. I have no desire to enter into that dispute whatever except to note that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has, in addition to his many other virtues and functions, apparently entered upon the field of prophecy because I find that in speaking in Montreal on January 5, he had this to say:
As I have said more than once, there is nothing more difficult for a political negotiator to retreat from than a bold, black headline!
In listening to the explanations given on that particular issue in this house I was beginning to believe these words. I am not going to enter into that particular dispute, because what I have to say this evening has

to do with an entirely different matter. I should like to devote a little time to the question of self-determination of nations.
I should like to begin by referring to a document which has not been adopted officially, but which I believe was one of the most important statements of policy which was published during the course of the second world war, namely, the Atlantic charter as it was known. I should like to quote just a few paragraphs from it because I believe that Canada could very well adopt that statement of policy as its external policy today. I believe it contains almost everything necessary to provide us with a proper guide in our approach and attitude toward other countries of the world. According to this document, which was proclaimed on August 14, 1941:
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.
And these are the principles:
First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorially or other;
Second, the desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;
The third one I consider to be most important for the purpose of what I have to say tonight:
They respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;
Other principles are outlined in this declaration, but for the purpose of what I have to say this evening these three will lay the base. As I said a moment ago I believe we can quite properly adopt this statement
of policy as outlined in the Atlantic charter as Canada's foreign policy, because certainly if there is any country in the world that can subscribe to these first three principles that 1 have just placed on the record, it is Canada.
In addition to that, may I also point out that in the human rights commission, in its eighth session in 1952 the following principles were adopted. I shall read just a brief introduction:
The commission adopted the following resolutions ;
1. Article for inclusion in the international covenants on human rights.
The commission on human rights
Resolves to insert in the draft covenants on human rights, the following article on the right of peoples and nations to self-determination;
External Affairs
"1. All peoples and all nations shall have the right of self-determination, namely, the right freely to determine their political, economic, social and [DOT] cultural status."
I will skip the next paragraph which relates to another matter and go to the third which reads:
The right of the peoples to self-determination shall also include permanent sovereignty over their natural wealth and resources. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence on the grounds of any rights that may be claimed by other states.
That, together with the declaration contained in the Atlantic charter, sets out the basic principles in so far as we are concerned, and I believe I can speak for all of us. We believe every nation in the world should have the right of self-determination, to choose the type of government they wish to have, the type of economic system they wish to operate, and to be sovereign and free within their own boundaries.
Reference has been made by other speakers during this debate to certain countries behind what is known as the iron curtain. Among those to which reference was made was the country known as the Ukraine. This evening I would like to spend a few minutes in dealing with that particular nation. I wish to assure hon. members that in spite of the fact that, as most hon. members probably know, my racial origin is Ukrainian, I do not approach this matter from a narrow point of view. I hope I can approach it in a more or less objective manner this evening. What I have to say I do not say in a spirit of narrow partisanship, nor do I claim to speak on behalf of the people of Canada who are of Ukrainian origin.
I have no mandate to speak on their behalf. I speak as a Canadian citizen. I was elected to this parliament as a Canadian citizen and though I might speak with a certain amount of, shall I say, sentimental attachment, I think that it will be readily understood that I speak in much the same way as, let us say, a person of Irish origin would speak of Ireland even though he had never seen that country, or much in the same way a Scot would speak of Scotland even though he had never been to Scotland. I am one of those who has never seen the Ukraine, but I do speak with a certain amount of sentiment as one who has heard a great deal, not only from my own parents but from the people with whom I have associated, about the beauty, history, traditions and culture of that country. At the same time I want to reiterate that tonight I hope to approach this subject in an objective manner and I hope that is the spirit in which what I have to say will be accepted.

External Affairs
This will not be the first occasion, Mr. Speaker, on which reference has been made to the Ukraine by various hon. members in this house, but it is perhaps the first time during this parliament that this subject has come up for formal discussion. I believe it would help to trace briefly something of its history for the benefit of those hon. members who may not be familiar with this nation. Few people realize, unless they have taken the trouble to make a study of it, that the Ukraine was a nation in its own right as far back as the middle of the ninth century. That, to a country as young as Canada, is a good many years ago. Perhaps few of us realize that as far back as the middle of the tenth century Christianity had already been accepted officially in that nation. It had come in much earlier than that, and there is evidence to show that both the Roman and Greek influence in that respect was felt in that country. However, it was officially adopted in the year 988 by Volodimir the Great who then ruled that nation. The exact origin of the Ukraine cannot, of course, be categorically stated any more than can perhaps the origin of any nation in the world, but it is known that there was a great deal of Scandinavian influence in the formation and organization of that country as a national entity.
It is known also that from its very beginnings the existence of the Ukrainian state was not a peaceful one due to the geographical location and due also to the fact that it was an area of Europe which was immensely rich in natural resources. It was a continual temptation to other nations perhaps less favoured in their resources and climate, and the Ukraine was the object of invasion on many occasions. History has spoken of the many attacks which the people *of the Ukraine had to repel from the east, and the many small and large wars which they had to fight in order to maintain their national sovereignty.
It is also interesting to note that the spirit *of democracy-and I speak of democracy here in very broad terms because the concept of democracy is continually undergoing change and interpretation-in the sense that the people wished to be self-governed is deeply rooted in the very existence of the Ukrainian people. History shows that as far back as the year 1068 the people of the Ukraine were *already sufficiently organized in a democratic manner that when they had to expel a ruler and replace him with another they did so by the democratic method of calling a meeting of the populace, taking a vote on the matter and settling it in that way. Many of their decisions were arrived at, even as far back
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
as one thousand years ago, in much the same way as in the early days of England when these problems were settled by a town meeting sometimes called the "folk moot". The latter method was used as a rough and ready means of arriving at democratic decisions and nowhere perhaps is that more evident as regards the Ukraine than in the conduct of their military affairs.
Most hon. members have heard of the famous military organization known as the Cossacks who fought for many years on behalf of the freedom of the Ukraine. They were more than just a military organization for they helped to organize the social and economic life of the country. Perhaps it is little known that the military leaders who led the Cossacks were themselves elected by the members of that military organization. In other words, the spirit of self-government and of everyone having his say in the choosing of the ones who were to run the affairs of that country is deeply rooted as part of the tradition of the Ukraine.
Perhaps one of the most famous persons born in the Ukraine was their national poet, the man who popularized and perhaps dramatized the Cossacks and their work and method of doing things. The name of that poet is Taras Shevchenko. The 93rd anniversary of his death was commemorated a few days ago, not only all across Canada wherever Ukrainian organizations exist but also all over the world because Shevchenko, in spite of the fact that he died while still comparatively a young man, reached international fame. Here I would like to quote a few words about this great national poet from the pen of Professor Manning of Columbia University. Here is what Professor Manning has to say:
He is one of the great poets of the 19th century without regard to nationality or language and his fearless appeal to right and truth and justice speaks as eloquently in the new world as it did in the old, or in the little village where he was born, the city to which he was taken or the treeless steppes to which he was exiled.
It is perhaps not too surprising that in spite of the great many difficulties that the Ukraine had in its early days it produced perhaps an unusual share of the world's artists, poets, and musicians. Perhaps the reason is that it was one of the most picturesque and beautiful countries in the world. Here again I have to rely upon those who have seen it. In order to get a more objective viewpoint I will quote from a Polish author who, about the year 1590, wrote the following words about the Ukraine:
Ukraine is the richest land known. Its steppes are to be compared with Elysian fields. They are boundless, broken only from time to time by

gentle hills, valleys and groves. Their aspect is fertile and lively. There is such wealth of cattle, game and birds that you might think it were the home of Diana and Ceres. Such quantities of honey are taken from the countless hives that you could forget the Sicilian Hela and the Attic Hymettus. Grapes grow there in plenty and the vine can be easily cultivated. Walnuts are in such plentiful abundance that the Ukraine might once have been an Italian land. It would be impossible to enumerate all the fishponds, lakes and rivers. But why should I vainly scatter magnificent descriptions when I might say in a word that Ukraine is the promised land that our Lord spoke of to the Jews, the land that flows with milk and honey. Once to have been in the Ukraine is never to leave it, it draws everyone as a magnet draws steel, on account of its many advantages. The sky above the Ukraine is smiling, its climate is healthy, its soil fertile . . .
Thus it goes on in a very flowery manner to describe this country. As I mentioned a while ago, its richness and beauty were at once the inspiration of the country and perhaps its greatest tragedy because its richness and its productivity were the attractions for these invaders, many of them almost half primitive, who came with nothing but greed and avarice and left nothing but ruin and desolation in their wake.
That was the early history of the Ukraine-turbulent, uncertain, full of struggles and yet at the same time developing a tradition of democracy, a love of beauty and culture. Then we come to the time that was referred to the other day by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), that of the treaty of Pereyaslavl of 1654, which-and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition in that respect-had tragic consequences. It was entered into with Russia in a spirit of brotherhood, friendship and the hope that they could live side by side as neighbours. But with all the good intentions on the part of the Ukrainians the regime in Russia pulled what is today known as a classic doublecross.
They betrayed the Ukraine and, instead of having peace and security, the Ukrainian people found themselves involved in intrigues and wars with their other neighbours. The result of the whole series of wars was that they lost their national sovereignty. For almost the next three hundred years the people had no country that they could call their own; they were divided first amongst one group of countries and then amongst another. It is interesting to note that in 1917, when the Russian revolution broke out in March in St. Petersburg, although for almost three hundred years these people had had no organized nation of their own or no national sovereignty, almost instantaneously they sprang to action and formed what was called the Ukrainian central council with the objective of winning back their sovereignty and
External Affairs
independence. I think that fact indicates how deeply rooted in their consciousness and in their very existence was their love of their country, their love of freedom, and their desire to live as masters in their own house.
The rest is almost recent history known by most hon. members, and I will not carry on much longer except to say that in January, 1918, this central council proclaimed the independence of the Ukraine. Unfortunately, owing to the circumstances of the time, the nation did not long remain sovereign but after a few struggles again lost its sovereignty.
I have given that outline just as a background, as briefly as I could, because I believe it is important that we know something about the circumstances of the problem which I am discussing. The question that I started with was the question of self-determination. Here we have a situation where almost forty million people, with a national tradition, a culture and a language of their own, are today part of what is known as the Soviet union. Although the regime at Moscow on paper claims to have given the Ukraine a certain amount of autonomy and has even gone to the extent of having a representative at the United Nations, yet I think no one is kidded by those gestures. Any person knowing anything at all about the situation knows that under those circumstances the Ukraine cannot call itself a nation in its own right. No nation which does not have control of its own foreign policy, and control over its own armed forces, can say that it is a sovereign nation. So we have that problem before us. We have this nation of forty million people who are under the domination of a foreign power. We know- history teaches us this, if nothing else-that those people are waiting and hoping for an opportunity to have their independence again.
May I also point out that in 1918 when the Ukrainian Central Council managed to set up an independent Ukraine, they tried to have it recognized by the peace conference. When they appeared at that peace conference they were greatly disappointed to find that the powers-that-be of that time were not prepared to recognize them. The question that is now before us is this: In what way can we be of assistance to these people to regain their independence?
Here I should like to refer again to some of the statements made by the various leaders in this country. First of all, the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), speaking in July of 1953 to the fourth all-Canada congress of the Ukrainian-Canadian committee in Winnipeg, referred to this question of Ukraine independence and pointed out that although

External Affairs
he was sympathetic to that objective he did not believe anyone would expect Canada to enter upon a war of liberation in order to accomplish it. May I say that what I am saying about the Ukraine of course applies to other countries in the same position. The Prime Minister used the following words:
A policy of liberation that would lead to a general atomic war could do no good to anybody.
In his address the other day the Leader of the Opposition also made reference to these various countries. I quote from his speech as recorded at page 3382 of Hansard, where he used the following words:
What of those people now behind the iron curtain to whom I have already referred: the people of Poland, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Roumania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, China and all the nations now enslaved? Have we forgotten them? No, there is no suggestion of armed forces moving into those areas to impose the will of the free nations. There could be none.
I have nothing to indicate the official position of the Social Credit group on that point, but so far as the government and the official opposition are concerned it appears to me that neither party is prepared to advocate anything like a war of liberation to win independence for these countries behind the iron curtain. That is quite understandable when one remembers some of the speeches in the debate in this house, in the British House of Commons and at Washington. When we know what could be involved in a third world war then we know that it could mean the loss of freedom even to those who now have it in an effort to gain independence for others. A third world war with the type of weapons now in existence is unthinkable.
Therefore we have to strive to find other methods, methods perhaps not as dramatic or heroic, perhaps not as quick of attainment, but methods nevertheless by which we can show that as a nation we do believe in the principles enunciated in the Atlantic charter, in the principle of self-determination adopted by the human rights commission, and that we do believe as a basic principle that all the people of this earth have a right to live as masters of their own lives.
That is why I hope that at every opportunity which presents itself this government -perhaps I should say this nation because governments change from time to time-will be ready to do everything within its diplomatic power to help countries such as the Ukraine and others to regain their independence and become sovereign nations in their own right. Opportunities will arise. I am sometimes laughed at by people who say that the age of revolution is over. Maybe I am just one of those idealists but I am one who believes that the revolution that started in
[Mr. Zaplitny.l
Russia in 1905 is not yet over. I do believe there is enough of the spirit of freedom and desire to be free amongst the people within the borders of the Soviet union today that many of us will live to see the day when they will burst their prisons from the inside.
Perhaps in the long run that is the only way in which people can become liberated. We have seen some pretty tragic results from so-called wars of liberation in the past. I believe that the time will come when the people of the Ukraine and other nations now enslaved by the Soviet union will strike a blow for freedom. That may not be as fantastic as it sounds. With the type of weapons of war existing today it might be the only practical way in the long run by which to bring about a major change in the boundaries of those countries. Whatever the method may be by which these nations to which I have referred may find themselves in a position to take their place amongst other democratic and freedom-loving nations of the world, I hope that Canada will be aligned on the side of freedom. I hope that Canada will do everything possible from now on to bring some hope to these people and to let them know that we are with them. Much can be done in that respect.
I have mentioned one method. The international service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is another. There is a Ukrainian section which broadcasts in the Ukrainian language. I hope the minister will take the time to look into that particular section and the international service of the C.B.C. generally in order to satisfy himself that we are doing everything possible to provide hope and information for these people who are not able to communicate with us. Without going into details, I may say to the minister that from what I have seen I am not particularly satisfied that we are doing everything we can. I believe some very important improvements can be made in that particular method of communication with our friends in other countries.
I also believe that a great deal can be done by letting it be known-this does not have to be a cloak and dagger affair-to all the peoples of the world that wherever people are striving for their national independence, wherever they want to establish their freedom as nations, wherever they want to set up a democratic way of life which is being denied to them by their masters, we are on their side.
I should like to refer hon. members to an article which appeared in the March issue of Reader's Digest. It is entitled, "Our Secret Allies" and is written by Eugene Lyons. Time will not permit me to refer to it at

great length but I should like to quote one or two paragraphs to indicate what line it takes. It reads:
Must the collapse of Bolshevism be preceded by a terrifying global war? Yes-unless we head it off in the only way it can be headed off, which is by winning the cold war. The indispensable first step toward that victory is a decision to win; the second is to make that decision known to all mankind, communicating it clearly, especially to the people of the Soviet empire.
The theme of the article is that perhaps the greatest and most powerful allies we have in a non-military sense are the people within these enslaved nations who are willing to risk their lives if necessary. Many people have risked and lost their lives for freedom in the past, and there are thousands who are willing to do so today but who do not want to throw themselves away even for a good cause unless they feel that there is some hope, that there are other people in the world who are with them at least morally. In other words, the people in these enslaved nations are our hope for avoiding a third world war. If they can do internally what would be done externally by means of war, if they can break down the prison walls which are holding them today, they will be perhaps the greatest single instrument in avoiding a global conflict. I hope we will make the fullest possible use of the allies we have in those countries.
I do not wish to pursue this subject much further. I hope that wherever it is possible the Secretary of State for External Affairs will use his diplomatic influence and that the government will use its diplomatic power to see to it that every encouragement is given to the people of the Ukraine in their fight for independence.
I do that knowing quite well that is not something which can be done easily, which can be done overnight or upon which we can expect the government of Canada to give us a firm pledge because there is a great deal involved in these matters. I do not want to leave the impression I am trying to force the government's hand or anything of that sort. I believe it is not too early for us, as a nation, to be prepared to be on the side of the freedom-loving people of a nation with a great tradition, and a great history whenever that opportunity presents itself again.
Let us not forget that the diplomatic blunder of 1918 in refusing to recognize the Ukraine as a nation is one for which we all, to some degree, have had to pay. Let us hope when the time comes again when we can have a friend in the heart of Europe instead of a potential enemy, we as a nation will take advantage of that opportunity.
External Affairs


John Decore: During the course of this debate, Mr. Speaker, members from different sections of this house have expressed both concern and disappointment over the recent failure of the Berlin conference, as well as the failure of the western world to come to some definite understanding with the rulers at the Kremlin. There is natural concern over the dangers and the possibilities of another world war, and especially the use and the consequence of atomic warfare. This concern, of course, is being shared by the people of Canada.
Even though nearly half of our total annual budget has recently been appropriated to national defence, and even though this is a great financial burden on the people of Canada, the people have accepted it because of our ardent desire for peace. Our participation in the Korean war, the presence of our troops today in Europe, our efforts at collective security are all for the purpose of deterring aggression and making it clear to the would-be aggressor that it would be very risky for him to start another war.
Of course we have learned the hard way, through history, that one-sided disarmament is certainly a definite invitation to aggression. Although Canada, together with other countries of the free world collectively, is spending huge sums of money on armaments for defence purposes in order to preserve peace, let me remind this house that today the Kremlin apparently has control of nearly one-third of the territory of the world and over eight hundred million of its population. Let me remind this house that the Kremlin has not only huge resources in manpower but has other resources as well for conducting a war. It holds strategic geographic positions in both Europe and Asia, and of course can rely on the help of fifth columnists in the countries of the western world.
As I say, we must be realistic and recognize these facts. The question therefore arises, has the free world and has Canada, in assessing the strength of Russian imperialism and world communism, also carefully assessed all its weaknesses? Shall it be the defence policy of the free world that, through alliances, collective agreements, we shall endeavour to match the Kremlin man for man and gun for gun in the event of a crisis? We certainly cannot match them man for man and I wonder just how far we can go in matching them gun for gun?
We do know that today the Kremlin has the ability to conduct atomic warfare. In the event of a crisis there are naturally certain advantages that are in our favour, but we must be compelled to recognize we have many

External Affairs
disadvantages as well. It is for that reason we should explore every avenue open to us and be prepared to exploit any situation which may arise in our favour, especially in the event of a showdown.
As a result of what I have just said, I should like to make some suggestions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). The free world has gone to great pains to seek collective security, especially through the NATO plan. This, of course, is on this side of the iron curtain. How far have we gone in endeavouring to seek allies behind the iron curtain? Let me hasten at once to say that I do not want to be misunderstood. Of course, the free world is hardly in a position to enter into any understanding with the governments behind the iron curtain, such as the satellite countries or other peoples within the U.S.S.R.
What I want to stress is this. It is surprising that many of our leading international observers in the western world seem to be under the impression and to create the impression that the U.S.S.R. is a monolithic Russia and that the U.S.S.R. is made up solely of Russians who speak the same language, have the same traditions, the same culture, the same aspirations and the same history. There are others who, recognizing that there are other peoples within the U.S.S.R., are under the impression or create the impression that these peoples are happy to be joined in union with the Russians; that they have been happy formerly under the czars and they are now happy under red government domination. Nothing could be further from the truth, and history persistently points out to us that is not the case. This is exactly what the Kremlin wants the western world to believe.
I am not going into any extensive argument at this time on this question. I should like to draw the attention of the minister to certain vital facts about the U.S.S.R. The U.S.S.R. is an empire made up of many captive nations. There is only one Russian nation within the U.S.S.R. but there are fifteen distinct non-Russian nations within the country who have throughout the centuries sought their independence from Moscow domination. One of them, the largest nonRussian nation within the U.S.S.R., occupies a territory larger than that of France and has a population of nearly 50 million people. It is important also to note that the majority of the people in the U.S.S.R. are non-Russians. These non-Russian peoples cannot be regarded merely as ethnic groups within the U.S.S.R. in the same sense as the ethnic groups of Canada or the United States, who are proud to be known as Canadians or Americans and who are striving for a common cause.

These captive nations have their own separate languages, traditions, culture and for centuries have struggled for liberation from the yoke of Moscow tyranny, whether it be under the czars or under the red government. Nor are these nations bound together by such common ties of affection and unity of purpose as we are within the British commonwealth of nations. On the contrary, these nations are being bound together by terror of the secret police, by concentration camps, by mass exil-ings and by liquidations directed from Moscow.
And so I say that we must be realistic and recognize these facts. And our foreign policy, I think, should be so directed. We should recognize who are the natural enemies of the Kremlin, and see if they are not the natural allies of the free world. It appears to me that the free world or the western world in many cases has failed to understand these dynamic forces of nationalism and self-determination which springs from the masses of the people, and which forces could be very instrumental in the overthrow of world communism and Russian imperialism.
Let me point this out, that although the Soviet government is basically the bitter foe of movements of national liberation, yet it is a fact that that government studies these movements with exceptional depth and uses them against the western world. The Kremlin uses arguments of national interest of peoples of Asia and Africa, and uses them politically and cleverly against us.
It is my submission that the subjugated nations within the U.S.S.R. together with the satellite states are the Achilles heel of Russian imperialism and world communism. I am not suggesting for one moment that we are now in a position to foment uprisings and revolutions of these subjugated captive nations within the U.S.S.R., and the satellite states. What I am suggesting is that, first of all, we should make a very careful study of all these peoples to whom I have referred -their way of thinking, their culture, their differences with the Russians, their aspirations, their desires-and above all, we should know their history, especially their history of movements of liberation.
Furthermore, let us not depend upon the Russians as a source of information concerning the history of these peoples, because it is a fact that the Russians have been and are today the greatest masters of the falsification of history, and especially the falsification of the history of these subjugated peoples. They have succeeded so well that many people in the free world seem to be under the impression that the U.S.S.R. is in fact a monolithic state. I say, let us endeavour

to show these people now that we have at least some interest, that we are interested in what they are doing and in what they are thinking.
On February 2, 1953, in his speech before the United States congress President Eisenhower made this statement:
Our policy, dedicated to making the free world secure, will envision all peaceful methods and devices, except breaking faith with our friends. We shall never acquiesce in the enslavement of any people in order to purchase fancied gain for ourselves. I shall ask the congress at a later date to join in an appropriate resolution making clear that this government recognizes no kind of commitment, contained in secret understandings of the past with foreign governments, which permit this kind of enslavement.
Almost at the same time the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Dulles, made this statement and gave this hope to the peoples enslaved by red Moscow, when he said, "The enslaved peoples should count on us".
I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am not too clear as to the interpretation of these words, and especially their application in connection with present American policy. However Canada is playing an important role in international affairs. I believe we should take some initiative; and I would like to make this suggestion to the minister-in fact, I would urge that the minister give this matter careful consideration-that is, that a separate section be set up in the Department of External Aifairs for the purpose of giving careful study to these different movements of the captive nations behind the iron curtain, and especially within the U.S.S.R.
This is important to us in the event of a crisis. Let us not make the same stupid mistake that was made by Hitler. There are many books being written today, and many have been written in the last few years containing statements by German generals and German leaders who say that Hitler did not lose the war with Soviet Russia at Stalingrad, but that he lost it near Kiev. When the Germans marched in, at one time over 600,000 soldiers laid down their arms and surrendered. The people in that area welcomed the Germans with bread and salt; they looked upon the Germans as their liberators.
But Hitler did not realize the significance of that. He started treating these people in the same brutal fashion in which he was treating the Jews, with the result that they turned against him. As 1 say, let us not be in that position; let us not make the same blunder. I know there is a school of thought with a strong following which says that if we favour this policy, if we show any interest in the nations within the U.S.S.R., we would
External Affairs
be antagonizing the Russian people. Well, it is my submission that the Russian people as such are not interested in Russian imperialism 

except for the upper strata-whether it be in the red or white ranks.
Let me say that the Kremlin, by exploiting the national aspirations of peoples, in Asia as well as in Africa, has caused the countries in the western world a great deal of embarrassment and difficulty. So why not turn the tables on them? I repeat:	Let us
recognize the natural enemies of Russian imperialism, and ascertain if they are not the natural allies of the free world.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, it is not the most agreeable occupation in the world to enter a debate that is reaching the close of its fourth day. Actually I was strongly encouraged only at the dinner recess by one of my colleagues with a great gift for clear and vivid expression not to speak at all. He said, "There has been too much talk on this already." I might have accepted his view were it not for the fact that I wished to say a few words for exactly the same reason set out by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) who, in opening his speech the other day, said:
I must confess to not a little surprise and considerable regret that the Prime Minister . . . said not one word about the vital and beneficent role that the Commonwealth is playing in the struggle for world peace today.
It is on that, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to detain the house for a very short time.
In spite of ourselves this debate has centred-I should not say "in spite of ourselves"; it is perhaps natural-largely around the two great monolithic centres of power. I am not overlooking what the. hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Decore) said about the cracks in the power of the U.S.S.R., but the debate has centred around these two centres of power, these two great land masses. And I suppose we must face the fact that if it were not for the breadth of view which the United States has taken in these latter years we might easily have had a situation where these two great land masses retired on themselves, and we might have two regional states with all the dangers and temptation to rivalry and struggle that is involved in that.
Imagine, for example, if you can, the United States, without the expansive view that it has taken, as a great centre of capitalistic power centred in Washington, and on the other hand a great centre of state socialistic power based on Moscow.
Now, we know the United States; we know that they hate war; we know that they, like ourselves, wish to live and let live. They

External Affairs
hate war just as we do; and although they have resorted to conscription, it is merely because of their great sense of danger and their great sense of world responsibility. The U.S.S.R. remains to us morally and intellectually an enigma. They use words in what seems to us a topsy-turvy fashion. I remember that friend of everyone who was in the house with him and whom we so sadly lost last autumn, Gordon Graydon, saying two things about the Russians that did more than anything else I have ever heard to make me understand in some vague way not what they were like perhaps but how different they were from us.
He said this to me: "We hardly realize how ingrained in our very fibre is the feeling that whatever the majority wants must happen; whatever kind of a gathering we are at, whatever is the subject of discussion, you get to the stage where this question is asked: What does the majority want?" Then he said to me a thing that I had never thought of before: "That is absolutely foreign to the Russian mind. There is nothing in them which responds to that." Then he added this curious irony. "They say we must proceed by unanimity, by agreement." Well, of course, the kind of agreement is a very strange one to us, but nevertheless, that is what Gordon Graydon said, and I think perhaps more than any of us-I'm sure the minister would not disagree with this-Gordon had the gift of getting on with everyone, even with the Russians.
He said another thing to me which was full of significance, and which gave me a glimpse of their mind. Perhaps more than anything else it gave me a glimpse of their utter incapacity for the great discovery which we have made, the greatest of all I think in our democracy, and that is tolerance. He told me that he had made friends with one of the Russians, and he said to this Russian after he had made a speech: "That was a good speech you made". And the answer was "Gordon-" everyone called him by his first name, and Gordon called everybody else by their first names; I have no doubt that if he had met the king he would have been calling him by his first name soon -"Gordon, you cannot be sincere when you say that was a good speech, because you did not agree with it."
Now, that, Mr. Speaker, seemed to me to give a glimpse, perhaps clearer than I had ever had before, of this strange mentality that cannot believe that you can disagree with a person and still respect him, and, what is more important still, work with him. This chamber in which we sit is an evidence of the greatest of all discoveries, I suppose,
[Mr. Macdonnell.1
made by democracies, and that is that it is possible to be tolerant, it is possible to disagree and yet to work together; it is possible, as Churchill said, to believe that the things which divide us-and sometimes they seem pretty great-are less than the things which unite us.
Now, in this strange situation we find ourselves, with these two great centres of power, we go on with an uneasy modus vivendi, and we are looking constantly for some way of living together, if not happily at least peaceably. Sometimes we seem to be making a little progress, and sometimes we are not so sure, and if there were nothing but these two great forces in the world I confess that my hopes would not be very high and the situation would seem to be bleak indeed.
And it is in that atmosphere that we are when we are thinking purely of these two great centres of power. How could it be otherwise? We are always talking about war; we cannot help it. We are driven into it. We are talking about preparation and counterpreparation. Therefore it is hard for us in this atmosphere to look beyond; it is hard to have any other thoughts in our minds, and for that reason it seems to me that we ought to be as thankful as we can be and more thankful than we often are that there is the commonwealth; that there is this third centre of power in the world. It is not negligible, but we are apt sometimes to forget about it or to seem to forget about it.
Let us take a look at it, and at the importance of it. First of all, in the United Kingdom you have a power, not so great as it used to be, but with long experience, great knowledge and immense patience. You have in the dominions new and increasing centres of power, and though we sometimes overlook it, the commonwealth has in the last few years played a very important part. If we go back to the two wars, what was our part in it? Without flattering ourselves we can remember, as somebody put it, that we were 1914 and 1939 men and not 1917 and 1941 men. In other words, we gave the lead to this continent at a time when a lead was very important.
Now, let us take a look at this commonwealth with its world-wide interests-an association of nations belonging to every part of the globe, containing in it hundreds of millions of Asians, who are in it of their own free will, who remained in it when the time came that they were free to go where they wished. They remained inside the commonwealth and they have in this recent struggle played a part. If we are fair-minded

we must concede that India played a part first of all in the negotiations which led to the armistice, and after all an armistice is better than fighting, and also played a part, I think a significant part, in the dealings with the prisoners of war. We remember how the prisoners of war used to be front-page news almost every morning. There is one menace which apparently has been put to sleep for the moment at any rate.
The commonwealth cuts across regional-isms. Like the C.P.R., it spans the world and helps to break down isolation. You might also say it is neither American, European, Asiatic nor African but world-wide. Its members are set in different continents but they belong outside, too. Australia is not merely a part of the southeast Asiatic region; it is a part of the commonwealth. South Africa is not merely a part of Africa; it is a part of the commonwealth. Canada is not merely an important part of the North American continent; it is a part of the commonwealth. Here I should like to read from one whose words were always listened to with interest, describing briefly the role of our own country, its purposes and its possibilities. I quote briefly from Churchill speaking of Canada's place in the world:
The long unguarded frontier, the habits and intercourse of daily life, the fruitful and profitable connections of business, the sympathies and even the antipathies of honest neighbourliness, make Canada a binder-together of the English-speaking peoples. She is a magnet exercising a double attraction, drawing both Great Britain and the United States towards herself and thus drawing them closer to each other.
She is the only surviving bond which stretches from Europe across the Atlantic ocean. In fact, no state, no country, no band of men can more truly be described as the linchpin of peace and world progress.
Then I come in this list to the United Kingdom, that much-enduring people good at need; often annoying, if you will, but who improve on acquaintance, always good in a pinch, and who have stood for freedom when no one else would do it except the other members in the commonwealth, and at a time when it was vital it should be done.
The commonwealth cannot be isolationist. Geography forbids; it is spread all over the world and its interests tend to world order. At the same time there is a tendency to the decentralization of power and toward local autonomy.
I want to say a word as to the vast importance of the Asian members of the commonwealth. It may well be that the hundreds of millions of Asians within the commonwealth may still bring us a rich harvest of good will, which we can hardly anticipate as yet, for they have contacts with the rest 83276-222
External Affairs
of the Asian world. I have already mentioned the useful part which India has been playing in world affairs and I want to say again that every member of the commonwealth is a member of their own free will- they can take down their hats and leave any time they wish. I have also pointed out that it helps to mitigate regionalism. Power split three ways is infinitely safer than power split two ways.
Now I wish to say a word as to a division of the world into two blocs and what that would mean to Canada if it were ever consummated. Just as Belgium used to be the cockpit of Europe we stand between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. and we could easily become the cockpit in the centre of a conflict. Without the commonwealth connection there would be little alternative but to become part of the hemispheric empire of the United States. But the commonwealth has always been friendly to the United States and indeed during two world wars helped to pull the United States out of continental isolation.
There was a time when there was a feeling throughout the commonwealth that parts of that commonwealth, other than the United Kingdom, suffered from some inferiority of status, that there was a touch of colonialism. However, Mr. Speaker, I know that we are all aware, and, every one of us, fully convinced, that that status is long behind us, and at the present time we are as free as the air, and free to do what we will. The commonwealth constitutes an example of world order on a small scale because, as I said, it covers the world. It has always stood for freedom and toleration and it has saved the world from what might have been world tyranny in both great wars.
That being so I found some disappointment in the words used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). These words have already been quoted but I should like to quote briefly again as reported at page 2394 of Hansard. During a statement made at Rollins College, Florida, the minister said:
So we range ourselves on the side of freedom, under the leadership of the United States of America, and we will play, I hope, a good part in the long and unending fight for peace and a decent world.
I regret that at that time the minister should have thought it necessary to confine his remarks to the United States. We are, of course, ready to accept leadership from the United States, but I regret that he left it open to the interpretation that we do not regard the commonwealth as one of the

External Affairs
great leaders with whom we are associated and whose example we should follow.
My own feeling, Mr. Speaker, is that we should be proud of our North American partnership; we should be proud of our commonwealth partnership, and we should be thankful that Providence has placed us in the position where we can play a great part in both.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) I do not wish to offer any apologies for lengthening the time for this debate. I am sure if my people back home wanted me to rise in this house and speak on any debate it would be on this one. I do not believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) is overly anxious to end the debate. I have full confidence that he wants to have placed before him in as full a measure as possible what goes on in the minds of the Canadian people.
However, having said that in regard to the hon. member for Greenwood, I wish to underline everything else he has said. I was very pleased to see the Conservative party, through that hon. member, make some attempt to amend what I believe has been some of the harm they have done during the past few days.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I notice some inference drawn from speeches made by hon. members in this section of the house and the term "fellow travellers" was used in regard to these members. I would like to place on record that these things the Canadian people have been reading about in the newspapers about the evils of communism have been known to some of us for many, many years before our newspapers published what they considered to be news.
I have personally lived side by side with refugees from communism since the year 1923. In fact, our home was the home of a considerable number of refugees over quite a number of years and I regret to have to admit that the stories told by refugees in 1923, 1927 and 1947 are all the same. It is one and the same song of persecution beyond the point of endurance. I hope no one will ever attempt to label me a "fellow traveller". However, I also learned from many hundreds of refugees I got to know that Russia today has no more and no less of Christianity than she had before the revolution of 1917. I believe most hon. members in this house will agree with that.
The common, ordinary peasant of Russia today has to live under the most terrible conditions in exactly the same way as he had to live before that revolution. When we

think of the Soviet union I do not believe we can lay all the blame for the conditions under which these people unfortunately have to live under the system of government they now have. There have been a lot of other forces at work. For confirmation of that other than from refugees one has only to read a few of the books of the great Russian writer Tolstoy. We realize that people there have lived under these horrible conditions for a long, long time.
I will admit that what our newspapers say about the slave labour camps in the rugged north of Siberia is only too true. However, slave labour camps were not invented by the communists. They were merely extended by them for they were favourite resorts to which these czarist rulers used to send their undesirables.
Another thing that does not fool me is the eternal attempt on the part of the communists to form a united front. I maintain that the great tragedy of Spain would possibly never have happened if a lot of the liberal-minded people had not been taken in by the communist offer of forming a united front. Whenever communists have formed a united front with liberals and with progressives, they have deceived and have managed to upset the arrangements. They have not kept faith. The same could be said of Czechoslovakia and their rape of that country. The condition maybe was unavoidable there. At this time I should like to endorse the statement that our Secretary of State for External Affairs made on Sunday last in referring to what happened in Czechoslovakia. The same story applies to the history of the Baltic states. I regret to say that the same story may some day apply to some of the states of India and to a great nation such as Italy. There is no such thing as forming a united front with any dictatorial political organization, be it of the right or of the left.
Where have we failed the cause of democracy? I think one of our earliest failures of the cause of democracy was when we let down the Weimar republic of Germany. That let-down was responsible indirectly for the rise of communism and nazism in Germany so that by 1933 there was nothing left for the German people but to choose what they thought to be the lesser of two evils. Another let-down in more recent years of the cause of democracy-and I am not too sure just what our share of the blame is-has been the actions in British Guiana. Surely a nation in South America that has been under British rule for as long as has British Guiana should not have found that the only alternative to the state of things as they existed there was

a government that the government of Great Britain had to oust. Somewhere along the line we failed there.
I feel that we also failed as a western civilization in the countries of South America. I think it is a reflection on all of us in the western world that there are as many nations as there are now in South America under the armed heel of dictatorship. I think we have failed in Africa somewhere, in East Africa as well as in South Africa. Even today we still find in democracies a good measure of support for the cause of colonialism. When we think of Indo-China, let us ask ourselves why France is at war there. Is it because she wants to act as a bulwark against the advance of communism, or did the IndoChinese war originate because the people of France wanted to defend their interests there? .
The statement has been made that Asia is the most important part of the world today. To that statement I should like to add that, from my observation, Asia today is the last hope for the white race. I feel that our history in Asia has been a most deplorable one. We have sent the missionary, and right beside the missionary went the exploiter. Yet we are greatly amazed when we find how little effect our missionaries have had in Asia over the years. We stand condemned in the eyes of the Asiatic world. I think there is a good deal of reason why they should condemn the white race. We are not only condemned in Asia but we are condemned in Africa and in South America. Just the other day I noticed a report on Canadian hospitals, and I noted there the great discrepancy between the type of hospitalization enjoyed by the white people in Canada and the hospitalization enjoyed by the Indians, the natives of Canada. Even here at home our skirts are not completely clean.
Today we are given a unique opportunity to salvage something from the wreck, if we will but take the lead and offer the hand of friendship to the people of Asia. After all the suspicion that they have for us, with just cause, if we are able to persuade them that we mean well towards them, we may yet hold our leading role in world affairs for a goodly number of years to come.
To me the surprising thing has been why we should suddenly worry about the fate of the peoples of Asia. We have gone along merrily for centuries and the white race has never shown any particular concern for the welfare of the peoples of Asia. Not so many years ago Asia was only a means of enriching our standard of living. I submit that the United Nations is our only hope. Acting as individual nations we are subject to suspicion by 83276-222J
External Affairs
those Asiatic and downtrodden peoples of the world; but possibly through an international agency such as the United Nations, we shall be able to do some good.
Much has been said of totalitarianism. I should like to give another definition of totalitarianism, Mr. Speaker. A totalitarian government is only a manifestation of the evil. When we speak of totalitarianism, may I say that totalitarianism exists in some measure in each and every one of us, in every human being. It is a part of the evil of the world. It can maybe be illustrated by this idea: I know what is right and if you do not agree with me, therefore you must be wrong. Because I am right, I have the authority to enforce my will upon yours. You must conform to my will because I am right and, if you refuse to conform, I am fully justified in using every means at my disposal to eliminate such an evil influence that does not agree with me.
That idea finds expression in many ways, and one way is in form of government. If we were to abolish the government of the Soviet union today, very likely another similar evil form of government would take its place. I think the results of the first and second world wars should by now have convinced us of that. We thought we had rid the world of dictatorships but I do not think I am wrong when I say that in the world today there are possibly more dictatorships than there were back in 1939; and we recognize some of them as being equally vicious.
To my mind, it all comes back to a basic principle that we somehow will not adopt. The theory of authoritarianism at one time in man's history may have been useful. However, it was condemned for us, in the western world, as far back as 2,000 years ago. Yet we still seem to want to cling to it. Even in this house I notice that someone is advocating that our Criminal Code should be based on the Mosaic laws. I thought that was a very backward statement to make. Surely we had greater laws given to us 2,000 years ago, laws greater than the Mosaic laws which were meant to govern the affairs of men of an altogether different age, at a different stage of development and under different circumstances. How can we fight this evil of totalitarianism in the world? I maintain that we certainly will not fight it by such means as the rearmament of West Germany. I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) whether the western world has ever proposed to the Soviet union that we will see to it that West Germany is not rearmed if they will see to it that East Germany is not rearmed. At the recent Berlin conference we offered a deal

External Affairs
with respect to Germany. We wanted tree elections in Germany and maybe we did not say it but what we meant by free elections was that a government freely elected would then be loyal to the cause of the west.
It is readily understandable why the Soviet bloc turned down that offer. I think we could very well make all Germany a buffer state that would forever be prohibited from having armaments of its own. We might follow that up by using our imagination for a change and saying to the Soviet bloc: If you people will agree to give sovereign power over the Ukraine to the United Nations we Canadians will also give our sovereign power to the United Nations.
Mention has been made of the agencies of the United Nations and how we are willing to support them. Many laudatory words have been spoken about the United Nations.
I was especially happy with the speech made by the hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Macnaughton). I think he made one of the greatest contributions to this debate. What is our contribution to the United Nations and its agencies? We treat it as a multimillionaire attending church service treats the collection plate when he hauls out a nickel and lets it make a big noise when it falls. As a nation we are not sacrificing at all for the cause of world peace through the agencies of the United Nations. The amount of $25 million under the Colombo plan is not a sacrifice for the Canadian people, and I think all of us here who know something of the size of our national income must admit that.
At home I think we must set our own house in order. I agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he says that we must have a rededication to the faith that is in us. We must believe in the intrinsic basic sanctity of the individual. We must believe that no man has a fundamental right to be ruler over another man. That is the basis of Christianity. That is the basis of democracy. Then we must go on from political democracy to economic democracy because the other two are to a certain extent meaningless without making provision for the whole.
In view of the recent explosions of the H-bomb in the Pacific I think the time may not be too far removed when the Canadian nation and the Canadian government may turn back the pages of Hansard and look again at the philosophy put forward in this house by the first national leader of the C.C.F. party, Mr. J. S. Woodsworth. I think Canadians as a whole are beginning to realize that there is no solution through the

use of armed force that will be of any use. It is admitted that a third world war will wipe out our civilization as we now know it. That fact has not yet sunk home, but I think when we really realize the significance of it we will turn back the pages and look up what J. S. Woodsworth had to say.
A lot of statements have been made which I will not call wild because they were sincerely meant. I know that every member of the house is sincere in everything that he says, but the philosophy of some of these statements seems to be that we have to be prepared to die for the things that are so dear to us. I should like to ask the house: Are we willing to die for a God who needs an H-bomb to defend Him? Are we willing to die for a political or economic system? Are these things worth blowing up the world for?
I should like to again express my pleasure at the remarks of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and I should like to add that not only the peoples of the British commonwealth but all over western Europe and Asia hundreds of millions of people will have nothing to gain by a third world war that some of our friends to the left seem to think is necessary. The people of Europe, of Great Britain and the rest of the commonwealth and of southern Asia do not want war. They are looking today for leadership to avoid war. I have said it before and I say again that these peoples say from the bottom of their hearts to the United States, which has an economic system that it seems willing to blow up the world to defend, and to the Soviet union, which has a vicious political system that it seems prepared to defend no matter what the cost: A plague on both your houses, we will have peace and prosperity.
I am fully convinced after listening to what has been said in the house that the Liberal government knows what is the right course to follow. I only hope they will have the courage of their convictions to act accordingly. Let us make the United Nations an instrument that will preserve the peace of the world. Give to the United Nations the military tools necessary but let us not sabotage it before it has begun to be effective in the world.
(Translation):


Mr. Georges Villeneuve (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would feel remiss in my duty were I to let the current debate on external affairs come to an end without making my humble contribution and dealing particularly with two questions I deem especially important,

the American nations organization, more often called the Pan-American Union, and our representation abroad.
May I be permitted first to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) upon the manner in which he performed his task during his recent trip around the world. We can expect that from now on the voice of Canada will be particularly heeded in the international sphere; this will give more importance to our country which, moreover, seems called upon to bridge the gap between nations of greater importance which are proportionately farther apart on account of various ideological, racial, economical and historical factors. Thus is verified in the international field the truth of the popular maxim: "We often require the help of one smaller than ourselves." I see in that fact a wonderful opportunity for Canada to win the friendship of a number of nations in such a way as to get help in various fields, since isolationism is out of place in the present world.
Caracas, in Venezuela, was recently the site of an important Pan-American conference, but unfortunately Canada as usual was conspicuous by its absence. Our country has repeatedly been invited to send representatives to the Pan-American Union which includes every American country but ours. Canada sent observers to some of the conferences held by this organization, which at least augured well for the future. But, at this last conference, Canada was completely conspicuous by its absence, which is to be regretted, for, as an American country, Canada should first of all, in my opinion, study the problems facing the continent to which it belongs. Peace, good will and the struggle against communism, all matters which concern us and to which we devote our efforts and sacrifices, should in my opinion be of primary interest to us in relation to the continent where we live and of which our country is a part, whether we like it or not.
As far as I know, only one Canadian attended the Pan-American conference in an unofficial capacity; without an official mandate he could not speak for Canada, although, at Caracas, our voice would have been listened to even more than that of our immediate neighbour, for the good reason that no friction ever arose between our country and any of the Latin American countries.
On the occasion of the Caracas conference, the countries of America, anxious to share in the betterment of their own populations, decided to create an institute for interAmerican economic co-operation, and asked three universities-two of which are Cana-
External Affairs
dian, namely Laval University of Quebec, and St. Francis Xavier University of Antigonish- to send delegates among whom would be chosen the director of this institute. They have thus recognized the magnificent achievements of the co-operative movement in Canada, as well as the important place we have acquired in the eyes of our continental neighbours, and have shown by the same token the services which our country could render its neighbours by taking an active part in the Pan-American Union.
Last year, a group of Canadian businessmen, headed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), visited certain South American countries on a commercial and economic mission. Our country needs new markets and it would seem that we have interest in making bids for the markets of several countries at the same time. The Canadian mission did not fail to see the numerous possibilities for trade with these various countries with which we do not have enough relations.
By becoming a member of the PanAmerican Union, I am confident that Canada, while making an act of faith in pan-Americanism, would consolidate and improve her foreign trade. I would also see in such a move a means of helping countries that seek our friendship, which would also benefit Canada herself. Moreover, all those Latin American countries have a culture similar to that of the French-speaking element of Canada. Since French culture has been and continues to be an asset to our country, I do not see why it could not be permitted to make its influence felt more fully abroad, which would tend to enhance still more the prestige of our bilingual and bi-racial nation.
If Canada deems it advisable to subscribe to the United Nations, to the Atlantic treaty and to many other international organizations whose aim is to maintain peace in the world, which is also Canada's concern; if, on the other hand, Canada thinks it advisable to have ambassadors in most American countries, then, I fail to see why our country would stand aloof any longer from the PanAmerican Union, in which we are immediately interested and in which Canada, being both an important country and an American country, could play a very important part. As far as I am concerned, I will be doubly proud the day Canada joins the PanAmerican Union, because we will then have paid more attention to problems in which we are interested from every point of view, to the problems of a continent of which our country is a part.

External Affairs
Coming now to the second part of my remarks, it seems strange to me that Canada has no diplomatic relations with the Vatican state, where all important countries feel that they need a spokesman, because the Vatican has long been a crossroads of international influences, because of the international influence of its head, whose authority is both civil and religious.
The great objection made to this representation generally originates with people who are unable to distinguish between the civil and religious aspects of a state which nevertheless has great influence and has done its share in the work for peace throughout the world.
A large number of countries, among which are some of the most influential and least Catholic of all, such as the United Kingdom, Japan and Turkey, maintain diplomatic representatives at the Vatican. I have not heard it said that this has been prejudicial to them or contrary to their interests since they have made no move to withdraw them.
For instance when a British ambassador presents his credentials to the chief of state of the Vatican, these letters are issued under the Great Seal of Her Majesty the Queen of England, head of the Established Church of England, but also sovereign of a temporal state called the United Kingdom, to His Majesty the King of the Vatican state, head of the Catholic Church as well as of a temporal state called the Vatican. I do not think that such an exchange of diplomatic representatives between two sovereigns, who are at one and the same time temporal and spiritual rulers, has led to any worsening of the relations between themselves or their respective states since, on both sides, this representation has been quite voluntarily maintained.
Therefore, I hope that the day will come when all Canadians, regardless of their religious convictions, will consider this matter objectively, so that our country may exchange diplomatic representatives with the Vatican. And I am sure that no Canadian of the Catholic faith would even be opposed to the nomination of a representative of another religious faith, since it will be a case of naming a representative to a temporal state as such and not to a religious leader.
I am one of those who believe that cultural differences have nothing to do with Canada's participation in the organization of American states, no more than religious antagonisms, in the matter of naming an ambassador to the Vatican. So I believe that Canada, by filling these two gaps, would make a great step forward in the international field.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the hon. member for Roberval adjourn the debate, or has he finished his speech?


Georges Villeneuve: I have finished my speech, Mr. Speaker.
(Text):
On motion of Mr. Winch the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Tomorrow we shall continue this debate and when it is completed take the Criminal Code, with this reservation, that there will be a slight alteration in the sequence in which we take the remaining items so that the sections dealing with treason will be reached last rather than second last.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the second last, then, be the sections having to do with mischief and sabotage?


Walter Edward Harris: I understood those were the last sections, and that they are just reversed.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.﻿3515
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 31, 1954