1954-03-26

Mr. Hector Dupuis (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to thank you personally and on behalf of several of my colleagues for the immediate attention you gave to my recent suggestion in regard to the sale of French daily newspapers in the cafeteria. These newspapers have been made available for several days now and I thank you for it.
(Text):



EXPLANATION OF CHANGE IN AMPLIFYING SYSTEM

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noticed that the roving microphone which was used yesterday as an experiment has now disappeared. It has proven to the engineer operators and to all of us, I think, that whenever a member speaks he should direct his voice to the microphone nearest to him, and hon. members surrounding the member who has the floor should remain as silent as possible; otherwise the noise which is being made around the member who has the floor is picked up by the suspended microphone and that rather annuls the strength of the voice of the one who has the floor.
There may be other questions that hon. members would wish to ask about this system. I am not an expert. I have asked the engineer operators whether they would meet the members in order to discuss whatever points they may wish to have answered, and they have agreed, in the most co-operative manner, to be here on Monday between eleven and one o'clock on the floor of the house, and if hon. members wish to come down and ask questions about the system they will be pleased to answer whatever queries hon. members might make.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Rene N. Jutras (Provencher) presented the first report of the standing committee on agriculture and colonization, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. H. Harrison (Meadow Lake):: I have the honour to present the fourth report of the standing committee on standing orders.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention of the hon. member to move concurrence in this report today?


John Hornby Harrison: Mr. Speaker, we shall not be able to move concurrence until Monday.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) I should like to lay on the table the budget of the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited, for the year 1954, in accordance with the provisions of section 12 of the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, chapter 39, Revised Statutes of 1952, and of section 80 of the Financial Administration Act, chapter 116, Revised Statutes of 1952, and as approved by the governor general in council by order in council P.C. 1954-448 of March 25, 1954.
On behalf of the minister, I move:
That the budget ol the Canadian National Railways and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, tabled this day, be referred to the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. H. Dickey (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Defence Production):: On
behalf of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), I am tabling, in accordance with law, the Trans-Canada Air Lines capital budget (revised) for the calendar year 1953; Trans-Canada Air Lines capital budget, 1954; and the Trans-Canada Air Lines operating budget, 1954.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to
3364	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Labour and to ask him the nature of the meeting which is to be convened next week between representatives of agriculture and of labour; the purpose of that meeting; and also the identity of those invited.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, a conference has been arranged for next week under the sponsorship of the national advisory council on manpower. The object of the one-day conference is to discuss the problems facing the farm implement industry. It will be a meeting of three representatives of organized labour directly employed in the farm implement industry; three representatives of management in the farm implement industry; three representatives of organized agriculture; and three representatives of government departments, namely trade and commerce, agriculture and labour.


John George Diefenbaker: I would like to ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the Department of Labour to provide for similar meetings for other industries affected by unemployment?


Milton Fowler Gregg: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that this conference on Tuesday is by way of an experiment in regard to an industry in which it is possible to bring together easily representatives from the three groups related to the industry, namely management, labour and consumer. Obviously in the case of the textile industry, for example, it would not be so easy to do that and, consequently, before giving a direct reply to my hon. friend's question I would rather wait and see what comes out of next Tuesday's meeting.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE SUGGESTED REAPPOINTMENT OF ECONOMIC COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED IN 1945-46

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last I asked a question as to whether the government had made any decision as a result of the suggestion put forward by the premier of Ontario that the dominion-provincial economic committee be reappointed. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott), speaking for himself, said he had not been able to give any consideration to that suggestion. May I ask the Prime Minister if the government has been able to take the matter into consideration? If so, has any decision been arrived at?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the matter has not been discussed in council and, of course, no decision has been arrived at.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I then ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the suggestion made by the premier of Ontario as to the purpose that might be accomplished by the reappointment of such a committee, the government will take it into consideration and announce a decision in due course?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, the matter will certainly be considered, but it would not be practical to consider it in all its aspects without the presence of the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend will realize that between now and April 6 the Minister of Finance has to deal with things which are perhaps not more important but which do happen to be rather more urgent in view of the fact that he has declared the budget will be brought down on April 6.



CRIMINAL LAW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a report in today's Globe and Mail to the effect that a columnist's article which attacked capital punishment has resulted in a Vancouver publisher, editor, and columnist being cited for contempt of court? If so, I would like to ask the minister, in view of that, what protection a witness speaking in a similar vein before the joint committee of this house on capital punishment would enjoy?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to the article in question, and before expressing any opinion concerning it I would like to read that article and ascertain the facts.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) I would like to direct a question to his parliamentary assistant. Has the federal government received any representations from the provincial government of New Brunswick in connection with the development of atomic energy for power purposes in that province?


John Horace Dickey: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I

will take that question as notice and try to have an answer brought down in due course.



EFFECT OF HYDROGEN BOMB EXPLOSION IN THE PACIFIC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. H. Goode (Bumaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is reported in the press today that serious results have occurred from a reported explosion of a hydrogen bomb in the Pacific. In view of that, I would ask the minister: (1) whether the minister is being kept informed by certain governments regarding the effect of the bomb, and (2) if there is any possibility of radioactive dust falling upon cities on the Canadian Pacific coast?


Mr. Coldwell:: And (3), what is he going to do about it?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend was good enough to give me notice of this question. The answer to it is as follows. Although the Canadian government has not been given any information by other governments, and in this case, of course, it would be the government of the United States, concerning the effect of the range of the recent explosion of this hydrogen bomb in the Pacific, there is regular consultation with the United States government on the effect of nuclear explosions generally. I am not, of course, in a position to give a dogmatic reply to the second part of the question, nor, I suppose, is anyone else, but from information available we do not anticipate concentrations which could possibly be harmful on the Pacific coast.


Mr. Knowles:: And what is the answer to the third question?



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the minister yet in a position to tell the house how soon the government's legislation amending the War Veterans Allowance Act will be introduced?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.
External Affairs CUSTOMS ACT



IMPORTATION OF SLINGSHOTS AND MALAYAN STYLE THROWING DAGGERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
["As it is five o'clock, the house will now consider private and public bills."]
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in answer to a question by the hon. member for Eglin-ton (Mr. Fleming) I advised him I would look into the matter of slingshots and Malayan style throwing daggers to establish whether representations had recently been received from any police authorities in regard to their importation. Our records indicate that no such representations have been received of recent date.
These articles are normally imported by sporting goods dealers for sporting and game purposes. When imported for these purposes no special permit is required. Should the general use made of these articles indicate that these importations are generally being used for offensive or dangerous purposes the department would consider curtailment of importation by a permit system similar to that operated for revolvers and dangerous firearms and would allow importation only on production of a permit issued by the local authorities.



[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 25, 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. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, last night at adjournment time I was remarking that I felt all intelligent Canadians must have greeted the speeches made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in the United States recently with a great sigh of relief that at long last the Canadian government was taking some steps towards effecting a modification of some of the madder aspects of American foreign policy. Last night I was about to add that I doubted whether a reading of the speech made by the minister in this house yesterday would afford the Canadian people the same sigh of relief. Rather I am afraid they would heave a sigh of dismay and consider that we have gone back to where we started.

External Affairs
The minister attempted to explain away for us the statement of the United States Secretary of State, and I wondered whether he had borne in mind the fact that, since he spoke and since Mr. Dulles replied, Mr. Dulles himself had explained away his reaction to the minister's speech in the United States. Presumably we can now expect to have Mr. Dulles again explain away the explanation that was given here in this house last night of his speech. I must congratulate the minister, though, on his skill in dissecting and analysing the meaning of words. I wish that it were possible, by modifying our interpretation of words, necessarily to be able to modify the reality behind those words. But unfortunately we in this world do not fight with semantic weapons. If we did so, let me hasten to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I would most gladly enlist under the generalship of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson).
In the course of his speech the minister mentioned the Berlin conference and spoke in terms which were referred to by a later speaker as rather melancholy terms. Undoubtedly the results of the Berlin conference were extremely melancholy for those who felt that there had been some hope of reaching some sort of modus vivendi with the Soviet union on that occasion. Of course it is easy-and unfortunately the conduct and the manner of the Soviet union representatives make it all too easy-to place the blame for the failure squarely on the shoulders of Russia. But in pointing to the mote in the Soviet's eye I wonder whether we sometimes overlook the beam in our own. Just what was our spirit when we entered the Berlin conference? I want to quote, Mr. Speaker, from reports that appeared a month before the Berlin conference. In the Globe and Mail of January 15, 1954, there is a report from Bonn, Germany:
The west German Bundestag moved today to change the constitution to speed German rearmament inside a European army.
Here is another report on the same day from the New York Times. It is headed "Bonn house gets three rearming bills" and the subheading reads "Moves to amend constitution; pass first reading despite opposition of socialists". It reads in part as follows:
Despite Socialist objections, three bills to provide for conscription and rearmament in west Germany by amending the constitution were introduced today in the Bundestag.
I suggest that those two events in themselves gravely imperilled any chances whatever of a satisfactory result coming from the Berlin conference.
I notice that there are those who feel that there was far too much haste on the

part of the western representatives at the Berlin conference in the rejection of certain proposals that were made there. I quote from Mr. Sebastian Haffner, special correspondent to the London Observer and the Globe and Mail, as quoted in the Globe and Mail of February 25, 1954. Mr. Haffner has this to say in part:
Take, for instance, the ideas for an all-European treaty about collective security in Europe, which Mr. Molotov tabled on February 10. They were at once rejected out of hand by the western ministers as if it were possible to study all their implications and draw desperate conclusions from such a study within twenty-four hours!
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that every delegate to that conference must have known, before he entered the chamber, that the proposals that were made for the reunification of Germany and the rearming of Germany as a member of the western bloc could not possibly be accepted by the Soviet delegates.
Let us for a moment place the shoe on the other foot. Let us for a moment ask ourselves what would have been the reaction from the western powers had the Soviet union produced proposals for a free German election and for the arming of Germany after it was well known that the Soviet union had the means of drawing that armed Germany into a satellite group with herself. We know perfectly well that we would have rejected that proposal out of hand.
I suggest that the disastrous change in the viewpoint which has taken place in the western world since 1945 with regard to the rearming of Germany has been the major stumbling block to reaching an agreement with the Soviet union and its allies. There was perhaps one thing which might have united east and west with regard to Europe and that one thing was the justifiable fear of a rearmed Germany. But in spite of that, of course, we proceeded with plans for the rearmament of Germany and held up our hands in holy horror when the Russians told us that they could not possibly accept such an agreement. At Berlin no serious attempt whatever was made to reach some compromise solution that would safeguard both east and west. Moreover, not only was no serious attempt made, but there were deliberate attempts-such as those I have quoted from the Bonn Bundestag-to sabotage that conference before it ever took place.
I know quite well that to speak in this vein is to run the risk of being smeared as a communist and a communist sympathizer. It does not concern me greatly if I am so smeared, Mr. Speaker. I will say this. There is probably no one else in this house who has suffered so much at the hands of the misguided and evil characters whom the Soviet union uses as its stooges in Canada. I have

no sympathy whatever with the form of government that now obtains in the Soviet union. Nevertheless, in spite of all that, I cannot forget-though certain members in this house appear to be able to do so-that it was not the Russians who destroyed six million Jews in Europe; that it was not the Russians who had the concentration camps with the crematories that were attached thereto; and that it was not the Russians who trampled roughshod over the free states of western Europe. I cannot forget that two generations of Canadians have given their lives in order to conquer this danger spot in the heart of Europe. I cannot forget, Mr. Speaker, that twice in our own lifetime from this particular part of Europe there has arisen the most dangerous threat to human freedom.


An hon. Member:: Do not forget the
Russians.


Colin Cameron: My hon. friend says "How about the Russians?" Quite so; how about the Russians. But I want to remind him again that it was the evil forces in Germany, consisting of the most conservative element in Germany combined with the evil gangster element of a military caste, which attempted to dominate the world.


An hon. Member:: With the help of the conservative element in Great Britain.


Colin Cameron: Yes, with the help of the conservative element in Great Britain.


Mr. Brooks:: How foolish can you get?


Colin Cameron: External Affairs
are a warning signal for the world. Can there be any other purpose from the German point of view-the desire for armaments, the desire again to play that disastrous role of pitting the east against the west, the desire once more to take control of the continent of Europe and use it as a base for attack upon the whole world. I submit that we would be foolish indeed if we persist in this policy of arming Germany, which, all too clearly now to anyone who studies reports from Germany, is again falling into the hands of that evil combination that has been a disaster to Germany and the rest of the world twice in our lifetime,-


Mr. Gauthier (Porineuf):: That is a very strong statement.
Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo!: -a combination which is perhaps exemplified as well as anything by such people as General Kurt Meyer and Mr. Alfred Krupp, a combination that is perhaps best exemplified by all the ex-nazis who are now being released and the Ruhr industrialists, the same people and the same combination that very nearly destroyed human freedom in the world. I cannot forget that today. I cannot forget that two generations from this country went to destroy that danger; and to see our government acquiescing in rebuilding that danger today is to see the betrayal of everything that two generations of young Canadians fought for.
In the house yesterday we discussed the question of Asia. We heard ringing denunciations from certain quarters in the house of the suggestion of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), if it was a suggestion- I am not sure whether he retracted it-that we should at some time recognize communist China. With regard to the whole question of Asia I feel that we have been the victims of the most ridiculous and puerile oversimplification. We speak very boldly of the wickedness of the Chinese and their aggression in Korea. We do not look at that against the background of China which for centuries was the victim of white exploitation, which for centuries had to suffer humiliation at the hands of Great Britain and other western powers, the humiliation of seeing a large part of their economy placed in the hands of these foreign elements, the humiliation of seeing extraterritorial rights wrenched from them without any possibility of protest, the humiliation of seeing their entire economy used merely as a milch cow for western Europe.
Against that background I think that perhaps the Chinese action in Korea may take on a different light. I have always felt that it must be extremely difficult for any oriental to distinguish between those of our race who

have exploited them in the past ruthlessly, cruelly and most dishonestly and those of our race who go to fight them under the bright banners of the United Nations. I feel, as many have felt, that in acquiescing as Canada did in the disastrous advances to the Yalu river in Korea we were in fact acquiescing in throwing away the very last chance we had that the Chinese people could be kept out of the clutches of the Kremlin. We threw them into their arms.
I am not sure whether it was yesterday but the Prime Minister did say at one time that we must consider the question of the admission of China to the United Nations and the recognition of China. I am going to suggest that we can view that perhaps in a more rational light if we do not use terms such as I have heard used on the floor of the house, used indeed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he spoke here in January, terms such as "the free world", "freedom-loving people", without specifying just what peoples are designated. I believe there is something a little intellectually dishonest in pretending that we can put into one bag as the free world such nations as Franco's Spain, Salazar's Portugal, such nations as Greece under a reactionary regime imposed upon them from abroad, such nations as the dictatorships of South America whose votes, incidentally, were the deciding votes in the United Nations that were supposed to be votes for a free world.
I feel that these oversimplifications are one of the dangers that face us today. What has Canada's role been in this whole affair? I was one of those who welcomed with great enthusiasm the speeches of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the United States because I felt that when he made those speeches he went very far to redeem what had been, to put it as mildly as possible, a most embarrassing position for Canadians. Certainly I was embarrassed and I am sure a great many other Canadians were embarrassed when we read the report of a speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in this house to the effect that, although the government to which he belonged considered that a certain resolution before the United Nations was ill-advised and ill-timed and not likely to contribute to world peace, nevertheless this government felt obliged to support it. As I say, I welcomed his recent speeches in the United States because I felt they had redressed our situation somewhat. What has Canada's role been? I think on the most charitable basis we can only say that it has been a somewhat shabby role.

We have left the other nations, who are not nearly as well equipped as we are, to stand up for principles of honesty and decency in the world. In our pursuit of peaceful relations and quiet agreement with our neighbour to the south, we have been led into some extremely dubious courses. We have voted against or have abstained from voting on such questions as colonialism, on such questions as the treatment of France's colonial possessions. We have done the same thing with regard to the native population of South Africa, and the menace to human freedom and world peace that it entails. These are the things that many Canadians see that make them slightly afraid, and ashamed of being Canadians.
I suggest, sir, that the time has come for calculated risks. There are times when caution is the most reckless and dangerous course to follow. I suggest that this is one of those times. Let us for a moment consider the recent developments in United States and British military policy, and see how they fit into our role in the world scene today. We are spending some $2 billion, presumably for defence, and yet every report from the United States and Great Britain suggests that the United States is now retreating, if one may use that word, to dependence upon peripheral strategy; to dependence upon the very thing of which Mr. Dulles spoke in the United States and to which our government took exception. They are depending upon the power to drop atom bombs on actual or potential enemies any time that they consider it necessary. I suggest, sir, in that case we may well question the value of many of our defence expenditures today. This afternoon I heard the Minister of 'National Revenue (Mr. McCann) state he had been investigating slingshots. I would suggest it might be a good idea for him to investigate some of our conventional weapons to see if they are very much more valuable in an atomic age. I would suggest a careful examination of this expenditure in the light of recent developments, and in the light of the recent horrors in the Pacific, because it might well indicate a large part of these expenditures are useless burdens on our economy. Such an examination may indicate that now is the time for decisive action, a reduction in our defence expenditures and the application of those funds to aid those parts of the world which may very well fall victims to communism through internal collapse and disorder.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) spoke of the necessity of a decisive act of faith. I could not agree more that we need some decisive act of faith, but not an act of faith in some
External Affairs
power outside ourselves to save us from the results of our own folly and stupidity. We need faith that decency, courage, toleration and plain human kindness will promote a like response from those to whom we advance it. It is perhaps ironic that one who, like myself, has no religious beliefs should feel impelled this afternoon to bear witness to the conviction that the carpenter of Nazareth was not merely giving us counsel for moral perfection but giving us a practical prescription for human relationships and international relationships when he enjoined us to love one another and bear one another's burdens. The only sure foundation for stable human relationships is found in that doctrine.
I would say this to this government. The people of Canada are expecting you to give a lead of that sort today. They are expecting you to go forward and make that decisive act of faith. Let Canada go forward into the world with this as our slogan to that age-old query, "Am I my brother's keeper?", that we have only one answer, a resounding affirmative. Then, Mr. Speaker, you and I perhaps might be able to stand before the world and say with pride that we are Canadians. Otherwise, sir, if we are too cautious, if we are careful, if we think we can solve these problems by mutual destruction, then indeed the whole long course of human history from the caves of prehistoric days to the present has been, as someone said, a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Kon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition): I cannot rise in this debate to deal with the subject that is presented to us, Mr. Speaker, without referring for a moment to some statements that have just been made. I noticed the quotation concerning sound and fury signifying nothing, and that is what we have heard. But it goes farther than that. This hon. member has talked about the possibility of being ashamed of being a Canadian. May I say to the hon. members in this house, whatever basis we may have for differing as to the way in which Canada proceeds with its tasks, let no Canadian rise here and say he is ashamed of being a Canadian.
He poses a question for us, am I my brother's keeper? Let us examine that question. Let us ask him and ask others who pose that question, in the context in which it has been posed, what he thinks of those saintly Russians that he has pictured who have now enslaved a larger number of people than have ever been brought under a single slavery in the history of the world. Ask him that question and pose that same question to others who echo it in relation to the people in

External Affairs
China today who did not come under communism through any peasant uprising, but as a result of an invasion of a Chinese fifth column, organized and dispatched on its task by Russian officers. Ask him what he thinks about the brothers, cousins, mothers, sisters, and relatives of people in this country now living beyond the iron curtain in Czechoslovakia, in Roumania, in Hungary, and think of the hundreds of thousands of people in this country of Ukrainian and Polish blood, whose relatives today are under that slavery. Ask him the question, am I my brother's keeper?
Yes, let that question be posed in relation to Belgium, with all its tradition of freedom and democracy. Let us forget no nation today under the communist yoke before we seek to pose the question, "Am I my brother's keeper?", if we are prepared to forget the hundreds of millions now under the vilest form of slavery the world has ever known. He did not need to remind us in this house that twice in a single generation the armed forces of Germany have been pitted against us in bloody war. There are too many men here in this chamber who felt the impact of that war to need any reminders of the realities of that terrible war.
There is no one I hope in this chamber today who is forgetful of the most frightful pages in the history of mankind when men, blind, insane, drunk with power, carrying to its ultimate insanity appeals to prejudice and race, exterminated people in Germany in their millions, in one of the most unforgettable and barbaric acts of mass murder one has ever known. We know that; and it is because of that we now can read in the pages of recent history what was done to seek to impress upon the people of Germany, as upon the people of Japan, that no longer in the international fellowship of mankind will murder and barbarism of that kind be tolerated.
Whatever legalistic arguments there may be about any details of the Nuremberg trials, we know that those trials represented an attempt to stamp out this evil thing. No matter whether all who should have been punished were punished, we know that the trials and the executions in Japan were for the same purpose.
In this imperfect world it is certain that many who should have been punished have escaped. This will not be the first time that the hand of friendship has been extended to those who have been defeated in war in the hope of bringing the people who have been defeated in that way into a fellowship and understanding that can be for the common benefit of all mankind.
The whole of our history, the whole genius of our society, is the attempt that has been made over and over again, and with considerable success, to bring into friendship and understanding those against whom nations have been engaged in bloody and terrible conflict.
No, it is unnecessary to remind members in this House of Commons that, twice in one generation, we have been engaged in terrible conflict with German armed forces. I can only repeat that there are too many here in this chamber who themselves took part in the combined effort to destroy those forces, to need any reminder of this kind today.
Then, let us look at the sympathetic attitude shown toward Russia by the speaker who has spoken to us in terms which, fortunately, in my recollection have not been used on earlier occasions in this chamber, since the departure of Mr. Fred Rose. Let us not use soft terms to describe this unqualified condemnation of the representatives of Great Britain, the United States and France who went to Berlin in the hope of achieving some measure of sanity in Europe, and extending that sanity to Asia as well.
What a strange and indefensible thing it is to hear these charges being made-here, in this chamber-against those who have been associated with us in the common purpose of the defence of freedom, and to hear these charges made in terms that, I am sure, will bring comfort to the representatives of the Kremlin who, here in Ottawa, are engaged in reporting any favourable things that they can send back to Moscow from here.
No, these remarks should not be overlooked, because the fact that they were made here today indicates why it is so necessary for us to keep clearly before the people of Canada exactly why it is that money is being spent on defence, and exactly why it is that young Canadians, at this very moment, are in Korea, are in Europe, are on the oceans of the world, ready to play their part if that ghastly necessity should ever arise to defend that freedom which is the priceless heritage of the democracy we cherish here in Canada under our parliamentary system.
Strange, indeed, that we should hear a defence of the Russian position at a time like this when we are about to be represented at Geneva, along with other nations who are going there, in the hope of presenting some ray of light, some prospect of freedom, to those now enslaved by the government of a nation which, itself, today might be enslaved had we not gone to its rescue in 1941 and

1942. Has anyone here forgotten the epic story of those ships which, from Canada and other free nations, through the frozen waters of the Baltic carried supplies to Russia in their desperate hour of need, so that the Russian soil and the people of Russia for whom we had friendship-no matter what their governments might be-should not be enslaved by that nazi system against which we were fighting at that time? Who has forgotten the story of young men, frozen to their death, not for the defence of Canadian soil but so that Russia might be saved from nazi invasion? Who has forgotten the young men in those ships which were under attack by air, by submarine, by surface ships and which were carrying the aircraft, tanks, trucks, and all those things Russia needed so desperately at that time to survive the full weight of the German onslaught, which then extended from the Baltic right through to the Black sea?
No, unfortunately it seems necessary to remind some people of those facts, and to remind them that one of the reasons that our freedom is in danger today is that the nation which we befriended at that time betrayed us after the war was over, extended its power into nations whose freedom we thought we were protecting, and today has enslaved some 600 million human beings. Nor is this the beginning of Russian dreams of conquest; nor is this the beginning of Russian dreams of power. How did Russia come to occupy the largest territory inhabited by any single nation? By conquest following broken promises throughout the centuries.
Ask any Ukrainian in Canada about the history of his country, and he will tell you why it is that the Ukraine came under Russian slavery 300 years ago. He will tell you of a tragic blunder exactly 300 years ago this year, when the Ukrainian government of that day, seeking to strengthen its position in relation to other nations, entered into an agreement of friendship with Russia. As with other nations throughout history, Russia then flooded the Ukraine with its armed forces, established its position and except for a short period following the first world war, the Ukraine has been enslaved by Russia ever since. Under different forms of government that has been the picture. Today the only difference is that a more Godless dictatorship, a more brutal form of slavery, a more heartless despotism, is in power in Russia than at any time in the past.
I was moved to make these remarks, Mr. Speaker, because of the strong words that have found their way into the pages of Hansard from the mouth of the speaker who just sat down.
External Affairs
Now, may I deal with the subject that is before us? We are dealing with no academic problems; we are dealing with no argument in mere terms of likes or dislikes; we are discussing the very possibility of survival as a free people. It is nothing less. It is in that light, it is with that approach that we should examine the situation now before us.
When we hear suggestions that it might be wise to reduce our armaments, when we hear suggestions that we could well rely less on military defence, surely we need only to ask one question: Where is there any evidence available that Russia has reduced its armed strength by one aircraft, one ship, one tank, one submarine or one man or woman in uniform? Nowhere. On the contrary, the boast has been repeated over and over again that their military strength is increasing all the time.
It is in the face of that military strength, of that brutal reality, that we should consider the problems now before us. It has been a refreshing incident of the parliamentary experience of those of us who have been here for a few years that almost without exception we have found common ground in regard to the policies affecting our international relations. At the time that the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) left on his recent trip to visit so many countries around the world, he left with the genuine and wholehearted assurance of the members of this house that he could speak, and we hoped he would speak, on behalf of Canada and of all Canadians. We welcomed him back in the same spirit; we welcomed him back as the head of the government of Canada; we welcomed him back as the citizen chosen by the free vote of our people to speak with the highest measure of authority on behalf of Canadians outside of this country. Now it is necessary for us to examine the situation with which we are confronted.
Those of us who do not agree with any aspect of the position taken by this government, or any of us who are uncertain about the position of the government in regard to subjects in relation to which we have very strong and deep convictions, would be derelict in our duty if we did not speak with the utmost frankness in regard to those subjects. We had been led to believe that this motion to refer the estimates of the Department of External Affairs would provide an opportunity for a statement on external affairs that would clarify the position of this government not only for the benefit of hon. members but for the people of Canada.
I must confess great disappointment in the statements made yesterday by the government. The Secretary of State for External

External Affairs
Affairs (Mr. Pearson) told us what had happened at Berlin. He told us of the failure of that conference except for the extent that the meeting at Geneva may be regarded as offering some hope. He told us also of the failure of that gathering to deal either with German unification or with a solution of the Austrian situation; and then he went on to deal with certain misunderstandings which had occurred as a result of a speech by Mr. Dulles some time ago. He pointed out the misgivings with which this government had heard of the announcement by Mr. Dulles of the assurance of massive retaliation in the event of circumstances arising which, in the opinion of the government of the United States, justified action of that kind. He spoke of the ambiguity of the words that had been used. He told us of the attempts which had been made to clear up the situation and to remove that ambiguity. He left us with the impression that massive retaliation would not occur without consultation.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe he can have quite accurately interpreted what was in his mind. If he had told us that there would be consultation in regard to the circumstances under which there would be massive retaliation, then I think it might conform with what we have been told by the President of the United States through press reports we have received. There is a difference, and a very great difference. The eventuality against which the massing of all this dreadful hitting power has been taking place is that frightful eventuality of attack, either on the United States or on one of the nations with which we are associated. Is it thinkable that if such an attack occurred those forces which have been assembled for the defence of freedom would be held in leash while there was consultation? It is unthinkable.
Is it within the realm of possibility that the government of the United States would permit bombing to continue, or atomic attacks from submarines or surface craft, continued day by day or even hour by hour, without action until there had been consultation? It is simply not a possibility. That was recognized only a few days ago in Britain when it was indicated quite clearly that there would be agreement as to the circumstances under which the bases in Britain would be used, but it was very clearly understood that retaliation would be immediate, massive and dreadful.
The fact is that we are perhaps nearer the hope of lasting peace today than we have been for a very long time. It is a terrifying thing to admit, but as we read of the ashes from the hydrogen bomb at

Bikini blowing 800 or 900 miles still impregnated with the effect of that explosion, there must be in the minds of the men in the Kremlin, as of anyone else, how universal the destruction would be if the ultimate madness of war came once again.
There are many men in this chamber now who will remember how they were compelled to carry gas masks throughout the early years of the war. They were warned never to be without them. They knew that the enemy possessed, and that we possessed, gases of the most dreadful kind. That frightful weapon was never used. It was never used because it would have been so terrible on either side.
But here is something infinitely more terrible, so terrible in fact that it staggers the imagination. Only today responsible newspapers throughout the world are suggesting that great restraint should be exercised in the explosion of any more of these bombs. Editorials have pointed out that by accident someone may go beyond the controllable limit and thus send dangerous and deadly radiation throughout the greater part of the world. That is now a real and dreadful possibility.
One of these editorials in one of the most responsible newspapers published today pointed out that this presents the dreadful prospect that some madman, cornered and hopeless, might employ this dreadful weapon. That could be true. Certainly by every device within our power, certainly by every effort open to men of common sense and good will, we should be seeking to prevent that frightful possibility, which now unhappily is a possibility.
Anything I say will be said in the belief that what we do as a nation should bear that possibility in mind, and should keep that dreadful reality always before us in any decisions that are made. For that reason I wish to examine what was said yesterday, and what is still before us in regard to communist China and the conference which is to take place at Geneva.
The Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) explained yesterday that under the pressure of questions by members of the press he thought he might have used words that did not exactly interpret the thoughts that were in his mind. No member of this house will show any disposition to question in any way the explanation he has given. Certainly there is not any member here who is unaware of the difficulties presented by the kind of questions that are presented under pressure as someone leaves an aircraft, gets off a train or arrives at his destination, when he is either at home or abroad. That explanation we

accept without reservation. However, that does not dispose of the concern that is felt.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on an earlier occasion called our attention to the fact that the Prime Minister had used words similar to those which had been used on this occasion. It is true that those words had a distinctly different meaning in one particular aspect. The Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out to us that the Prime Minister last year had used words that did not speak of the government which the people wanted but which spoke of recognition in other terms. I am referring to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on March 8 last, as reported at page 2748 of Hansard. That was at the time a question had been asked with regard to these words which had been reported and which spoke of the government that the people wanted. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said this:
That is a press quotation from the Prime Minister's statement in respect of the recognition of the communist government of China. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said almost exactly the same thing in Ottawa on June 12, 1953, when he spoke on the same subject. He said then:
"We have got to be realistic on such problems and be prepared to deal with those who represent the nation over which they exercise authority."
Mr. Speaker, that statement has been given to us as one interpreting the position of the Prime Minister. But since the Prime Minister has left the matter-and I use the word in no way offensively-in the same situation as that in which Mr. Dulles' statement apparently originally was, namely in a state of some ambiguity, let us see what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been saying on this subject. He was noticeably silent on this subject yesterday, but he has not been silent on it recently; he has made a number of statements with regard to this subject. I therefore think it would be appropriate to examine what he has said, bearing in mind that this discussion arose in relation to Canada's position at the conference that is to take place in Geneva on April 26. Amongst other statements-and there were other speeches dealing with this subject-the Secretary of State made one dealing with it in Washington on March 15, one at Chicago on March 19 and one in Windsor on March 22. In Washington he said this, and I quote his words according to the press dispatch:
There is no question of recognition while the Korean war is unsettled, . . .
In Chicago he said that we would be prepared to consider recognition-and I use the words in quotation marks that were in the report-"if there are no new aggressions''.
External Affairs
In Windsor-and again I quote the words exactly as they appear in the report-he said:
If Red China adopts a conciliatory attitude at the Geneva conference in April, Canada might take a new look at the situation.
Then he added these words:
"And remember, . . . that conference is to be about Korea."
Mr. Speaker, these statements are certainly not open to the same ambiguity as were those of the Prime Minister yesterday. I of course refer back to the words of the Prime Minister which were placed on record as recently as March 8 by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They do not appear to be ambiguous, because the Prime Minister had said:
We have got to be realistic on such problems and be prepared to deal with those who represent the nation over which they exercise authority.
In those words there is no question of consent; the words used were "the nation over which they exercise authority".
I should just like to place on record certain words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in addition to those I have quoted, from the press reports dealing with those speeches I have mentioned. In the press report of the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Washington on March 15, he said this:
. . . one of these days there will have to be another look at the whole question, with a decision to be based on our national advantage and international advantege. That doesn't mean any probability of recognition at this time.
Then in Chicago on March 19, according to the Canadian Press dispatch of March 20, the Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say:
There is a strong attitude against recognition of that (Red China) regime in the United States but we in Canada are a little more cautious. We feel that if there are no new aggressions in the near future we should take another look at that problem -a more realistic, less emotional look.
Then on March 22, just four days ago, in Windsor, according to another Canadian Press dispatch the Secretary of State for External Affairs had this to say:
"Realistic doesn't mean that we will recognize Red China tomorrow, or refuse to recognize her a year from tomorrow",-
That is the end of the exact quotation.
*-he said, commenting on a suggestion that recognition of the Peiping regime would be Canada's only "realistic" course of action. If Red China adopts a conciliatory attitude at the Geneva conference in April, Canada might take a new look at the situation. "And remember", Mr. Pearson added, "that conference is to be about Korea".
If the Reds are willing to give assurances that their aggression in Korea is a thing of the past, and

External Affairs
that they are ready to take an honest line in international affairs, he said, Canada must consider following Great Britain's lead in recognizing the Peiping regime.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs of Canada. These are the words of the minister charged with the first responsibility for external affairs. These are the words of the minister who speaks for the government and must speak for the government with regard to external affairs. Therefore, even though there be some ambiguity and even though there be some variety in the explanations of the approach, we have this definite statement as reported in the press. Of course I recognize that I am simply repeating a Canadian Press dispatch, and I would point out that these words in the dispatch are a summary of what he said:
If the Reds are willing to give assurances that their aggression in Korea is a thing of the past and that they are ready to take an honest line in international affairs, he said, Canada must consider following Great Britain's lead in recognizing the Peiping regime.
These words have a reminiscent sound. Who will forget that tragic figure, umbrella and all, getting off the plane which had returned from Munich? Who will forget that tragic and earnest figure, that sincere man, so hopeful that he had done something for peace, so completely dedicated to the task and yet so misled in what he had done? Who will forget the picture of Chamberlain getting off the plane on returning from Munich? Who will forget his words-"peace in our time"? Who will forget his assurance that Hitler had told him that he had no further desire for territorial aggression? Who will forget how short a time after that it was that the world was plunged into a bloody and dreadful war, not entirely without some relationship to the fact that the German government thought that there was going to be no stopping of the step by step appeasement of their further demands for still more territory?
No, surely so soon after the last war we are not going to forget that if there was one thing about which everyone was agreed in 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945 and in the years that followed it was that appeasement did not bring peace but was one sure way to invite a tyrant to start a war. That was what everybody said. We all said it and I think we all believed it. I believe it today and I think there are many others who do. I think that by every sign of encouragement offered either to the Kremlin or to their associates, from which they might be led to believe that further territorial aggression will be possible without any active measures being taken, we are indeed actually increasing the prospects of war.

I use the word "war" and not "aggression". It was cruel, terrible and bloody war in Korea, and it was the government of Mao Tse-tung which was responsible for that war. It was the troops of Mao who were fighting our young men only a few months ago. When we talk of recognition of the government of communist China, let us remember that we are talking of recognizing a government whose hands are still red with the blood of young Canadians and young men from other lands who went to Korea to defend a principle as well as a territorial area within that tragic peninsula.
Surely we do not need to be in any doubt about the fact that China will give assurances that it will not start any other aggression. Yesterday we had placed on the record the statements of Lenin and the advice given by the communist teachers that no deception, no dishonesty, no misrepresentation should be avoided if it will serve the purpose of communist activities. That was an instruction given to those weak-minded people who were inclined to follow the course of honour. These instructions were given to communists who had made the mistake of acting as decent men and women. They were told they must not be misled by any restraint of decency of that kind, that they must lie, that they must deceive, that they must misrepresent as part of the great world struggle of communism.
Certainly the government of communist China will give assurances that there will be no further aggression. One of the reasons I am speaking in this debate, on a motion that we all support, is to raise my voice, which I am certain is not a voice speaking alone, against any possibility of Canada saying at Geneva that there will be recognition only upon the basis of some assurance by communist China which has been declared an aggressor by the United Nations. That is the purpose of these statements. That is the hope with which we present our arguments, that they may have some impact on the thoughts of those who have the responsibility for representing us on that occasion. I most certainly am not in any way going beyond the bounds of the words used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when I say that the words attributed to him in the press reports to which I have referred leave a clear and unmistakable impression that as long as the communist government of China gives assurances that there will be no further aggression then Canada may take a more realistic and less emotional outlook.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a completely wrong interpretation.


Mr. Drew:: I am not incorrectly interpreting the report. I am certainly not incorrectly interpreting the report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a completely wrong impression.


George Alexander Drew: I am certainly not giving a wrong impression of the words. I am giving the words themselves. Let me read the words again if there is any such suggestion. If the minister is not correctly reported then let him say so. He has not said so at any time yet, nor has he suggested it. These are the words attributed to him in quotes from his speech in Chicago:
There is a strong attitude against recognition of that red China regime in the United States. But we in Canada are a little more cautious. We feel that if there are no new aggressions in the near future we should have another look at that problem -a more realistic, less emotional look.
Again I repeat, in view of the interruption, the statement attributed to him in the Canadian Press dispatch from Windsor on March 22:
If the reds are willing to give assurances that their aggression in Korea is a thing of the past, and that they are ready to take an honest line in international affairs, he said, Canada must consider following Great Britain's lead in recognizing the Peiping regime.
If those are not correct reports, then by all means let him correct them. If they are correct reports, Mr. Speaker, they represent a position which I, for one, in this house personally hope with all my heart will not be expressed by Canada at Geneva on April 26. It is with that hope that these statements are being made. Nothing that has been said so far in this debate by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Prime Minister gives us any reassurance in relation to those words.
What about Indo-China? There is no reference to Indo-China in this statement. Do these statements, by the exclusion of Indo-China, mean that so long as assurances are given in connection with Korea our government is prepared to consider recognition, even if the war in Indo-China continues? I hope there will be no suggestion of that. I hope it will not be forgotten that, distant though the relationship may be, there are young men from France fighting in Indo-China today who have blood relatives in Canada who have been fighting the same communist evil in Korea within these past few months. I hope it will not be forgotten that France, our historic ally throughout the great struggle of the past for the freedom we now seek to preserve, is engaged in a deadly and terrible conflict with armed forces which could not remain in the field for a single
External Affairs
day if they were not supported and maintained by this communist government in Peking.
No, Mr. Speaker, I will welcome the assurance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he said something that was not contained in this report. I will welcome assurances from him that when he emphasized the fact, and took pains to emphasize the fact, that the conference was only for Korea and that if there were assurances in regard to Korea recognition might be considered, the government of Canada will not go to Geneva and offer any hope to the Peking government that there can be any thought of recognition while this costly struggle in Indo-China is carried on with its support.
Let us remember also that when we talk about recognition we are not speaking about the fact that we recognize the reality of the existence of a communist government in Peking, as the Prime Minister said yesterday. Let us remember, when we talk of recognition in its diplomatic sense, we are talking about formal recognition of a government whose armed forces have been fighting against ours, which has been declared an aggressor and which is anything but a peace-loving nation by present standards.
There is another thing that has not been mentioned by the government but which was mentioned by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in his very comprehensive and forceful examination of this subject yesterday. Recognition of the communist government of China means entry into the United Nations. Do not let the Secretary of State for External Affairs or anyone else in this house suggest it can be otherwise.
It cannot be otherwise, for one very simple reason. The United Nations charter was signed by nations. Men appended their signatures only as the individuals charged with the responsibility of speaking for a nation that was represented there. It surely is not without significance that when we look at the charter of the United Nations, signed with such solemnity in San Francisco on June 26, 1945, the first name to appear in the long list of signatories is that of China. It is not the nationalist government of China, not the Peking government, not the republic of China, but just China. Then are appended the names of those who signed under instructions of the Chinese government in those days. There can only be one China, just as there can only be one United States, one Britain, one France, one Italy and one of every other nation whose representatives signed there.
337G

External Affairs
If we recognize China we recognize that government as the government of China, and who then can deny them access to the United Nations? Who then can say that they have not the right to be there as the representative of the nation which signed? We know that Formosa is only a part of China. We know that Formosa is only a small part of the territory embraced under the term "China". It is neither a practical possibility, nor is it contemplated that if there is recognition China will be denied admission to the United Nations. If there is anyone in any doubt, let him read the reports of the speeches of Sir Gladwyn Jebb and the Secretary General of the United Nations in London last Friday, where they, to my surprise, rather took some people in the United States to task for resisting the entry of communist China into the United Nations. Read the speeches and read the arguments, and you will find there is not any doubt that those who are talking of recognition are talking of the entry of communist China into the United Nations.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, my remarks are directed not alone to any technical form of recognition, and I recognize that there are six distinct forms of recognition as put on the record last night by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) from one of the greatest experts on international law.
Let us not becloud this subject with any legalistic limitations. There may be six types of recognition, but the kind of recognition that is talked about and is thought about is the kind of recognition that would open the door to the United Nations building in New York. Therefore let us consider this subject on that basis, when we express our opinions now as to the course Canada should follow at Geneva on April 26.
Who are supposed to be members of the United Nations? There are terms of membership. Article 4 describes those who are qualified in this way:
Membership in the United Nations is open to all other peace-loving states which accept the obligations contained in the present charter and, in the judgment of the organization, are able and willing to carry out these obligations.
Who, in their right senses, could suggest that China at this time is a peace-loving nation? Who, in their right senses, at this time could suggest that communist China can subscribe, in honour, to the obligations contained in the charter of the United Nations?
Oh, but it may be said, "What about Russia, which is a member of the United Nations?" Yes, Russia signed the United Nations charter in June of 1945, at a time when we were fighting in a common cause, at a time when Russia was receiving without stint from Canada, from the United States and from

Great Britain, military supplies and equipment of all kinds to help them in that terrible struggle. Yes, Russia signed at a time that we had hopes-not justified by events, it is true-but nevertheless at a time we had hopes that Russia was prepared to act with some decency within the fellowship of the nations of the world.
There is a great difference between expelling a nation already a member, and permitting a nation to enter. Expulsion is practically an impossibility, in any event. But, Mr. Speaker, let us remember this, that if China is permitted to enter the United Nations, and Sir Gladwyn Jebb said it should be permitted to do, and as Mr. Hammarskjold indicated he thought it should be permitted to do-let us remember that not only does it become a member of the United Nations, but that it becomes a member of the United Nations with unique powers, authority and privileges. It becomes a member of the United Nations with those same special powers possessed by the United States, Great Britain, Russia and France, with the power of veto, and with other special powers giving it immense importance.
Could there be anything that would be more openly declared lunacy than for any person today to suggest that the United Nations is going to be an effective force for peace, and to stop aggression, if we invite into that special forum a nation which at this very moment is a declared aggressor and which has been waging bloody, cruel and frightful war? Not only has China been waging brutal, cruel and bloody war, but it has been defying those international rules which still have imposed at least some limits upon the horrors of war between decent nations.
Who has failed to read with sickening heart the stories printed about prisoners returning from Chinese prison camps, where murder, beatings, starvation and all the horrors referred to already, which came from that twin evil, nazism-who, I say, can read those and then talk about welcoming this nation as a fellow peace-loving nation at this time?
Mr. Speaker, there is another reason why communist China should not become a member of the United Nations under present circumstances, and why it is folly even to be talking about the possibility of that occurrence. When Canada, along with the other nations that signed the North Atlantic pact, entered into that mutual arrangement for defence, they implied-if they did not state in explicit terms-that the United Nations was incapable, under present conditions, of acting to prevent aggression.

Everyone knows the procedure by which troops were moved to Korea, and how the United Nations was brought into it. But, Mr. Speaker, we all know that, through the ordinary machinery of the United Nations, that act which has been a great deterrent to aggression would not have been a practical possibility. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, carried out it is true within the structural framework of the United Nations Organization, as was ANZUS, recognized that if the free nations are going to be able to build up their defences against aggression, they must do it through some channel other than the ordinary machinery of the United Nations Organization. That does not mean that the United Nations Organization is not effective for many useful purposes. It does not mean that we should not support it in every way we can in the hope that through the years ahead it may become a forum for the reasonable discussion of international problems and for the advancement of the economic and social welfare of all people. In so far as effective defence against aggression is concerned, it has been necessary to follow another course.
In view of that fact, how can we justify any suggestion at this time of making the United Nations even less effective than it is today? What would happen would be that you would have Russia and China acting in unison to disrupt every effort at constructive development within that organization. You would simply double the trouble that Russia has already been able to make because of their special position. You would simply increase by exactly 100 per cent the measure of paralysis that has been imposed upon the United Nations Organization by Russia's planned sabotage.
No, Mr. Speaker, while this is not something in regard to which we are called upon to vote, let us hope that there will be a sufficiently emphatic expression here of a desire to see no compromise with this evil, that there will be no uncertainty at Geneva as to what the position of Canada is. It is my earnest hope that between now and April 26, when that conference begins, as a result of the discussion that has taken place here, there will be further discussion throughout Canada that will inform the government that the people of Canada want no compromise with the devil.
What a pitiful hope is that vain hope expressed in terms of such utter unreality that if only we should be kind, generous and gentle to Mao Tse-tung perhaps he will forget his associations with Moscow and will embrace our free nations in a formal fellowship which will pit him against Russia in
External Affairs
their threat to the world. What a mad dream! What a dangerous dream! What a pitfall for nations which fell into that pit once before. Just let us remember certain things which indicate what folly it would be to embrace any such preposterous dream.
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 from those who, wisely or unwisely, were prepared to give them to him. Can anyone think for one moment that if Tito had been on the other side of a great ocean and had no prospects of military supplies and other help, he would have invited certain punishment that would have been visited upon him by Russia's forces at that time?
No, Mr. Speaker, there were many reasons why Tito took the stand he did, and we should welcome that, and we should hope that as the first step toward free government the same thing may happen in other lands. And I say "the first step toward free government", because it is my hope that under the influence of the outside world Yugoslavia may gradually emerge from communism into a better form of government that will bring freedom to its people. That is a possibility, once they are separated from the Kremlin. It is not a possibility as long as that slavery is a continuing reality.
Let us see what chance there is of a similar thing happening in the case of Mao. May I repeat something that needs to be repeated? Mao Tse-tung did not lead any agrarian uprising. He used so-called agrarian uprisings and he used everything else that would help his cause at different times; but the turning point in the career of Mao Tse-tung came after what is known as the long march when, having fought his way more than 5,000 miles across China, he found himself on the Soviet border, in valleys, under the shadows of the mountains where, with the assistance of Russian officers, Russian supplies and Russian equipment he could prepare the army that later invaded China.
We need not compare governments; we are not called upon to examine the merits or

External Affairs
demerits of Chiang Kai-shek or those associated with him in Formosa in discussing this subject. There were times when there was not the same resentment against Chiang Kai-shek as is expressed today. Nevertheless, that subject does not come up in considering this question of admission of the communist government of China to the United Nations.
Every argument I make is as potent an argument if there were no government in Formosa, or if the government of Formosa were itself a vassal of the Kremlin. I am dealing with this simply on the basis of the admission of a government such as that headed by Mao Tse-tung. No; let us remember what happened. They organized, and this Chinese fifth column, well supplied, well equipped, well trained, invaded China, and they were able to set up a government in China because of the support of Russia.
Let us consider now what the likelihood would be of Mao Tse-tung divorcing himself from the Kremlin. I am sure that every hon. member of the house who saw the photographs of the recent parade in the great square at Peking saw that they were similar to the military parades across red square in Moscow. If they did, they saw a formidable display of tanks, mobile cannons, and armed might reminiscent not only of those parades across red square in Moscow, but reminiscent of the equipment which appears in those parades, because every gun, every tank, every aircraft, every truck, and every piece of equipment was the same as those that would be seen in the parade in Moscow, and for the obvious reason that they came from the same factory.
Let us look at it the other way, Mr. Speaker. What is going to happen if encouragement be offered to Mao's government? There will be some people who will rejoice because it was as recently as March 6 that a directive was issued to the communist party in the United States dealing with this and other subjects. That directive is similar to directives issued to communist parties in every country where there is a communist party, though not to communist governments for they do not require them. They issue other kinds of directives in those countries. But in every country where we so generously permit treachery of that kind these directives have been issued, and one of the things for which the communists are ordered to work is the achievement of recognition of communist China.
I do not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that just because it happens that they ask for that we should close our ears to any argument,

but I must say that I for one am not particularly anxious to find myself engaged in a procedure which will bring comfort and solace to those men who are acting as traitors in our midst for purposes outlined by the Kremlin. Nor do I suggest for one moment that any hon. member opposite would have any such feeling. I am not so sure about the attitude of one hon. member who has spoken in this debate, but that, of course, is something for which he alone is responsible, both for the interpretation and for the words themselves. No, Mr. Speaker, this is a reality and we all have a duty to approach it in the sense of reality.
Let us turn to another aspect of the situation. One of the things that has been said is that if communist China gives assurances that we then might be inclined to follow the course which Britain followed. But let us not be under any misapprehension as to the course which Britain followed. Personally, I think it was a great mistake that they recognized communist China at the time they did, and' that is not my opinion alone. It is the opinion of the present British foreign secretary. In fact he went so far as to say that it was terrible that it had been done at the time and in the way it was done.
Those who are inclined to blame Britain for what they did might well remember that this took place under a socialist government in Britain, and that the situation was one which was taken over by the present government of Britain. Only the present government of Britain is in a position to state what it would do, but in view of the statement made by Mr. Eden as long ago as January, 1950, I have little doubt that he would have taken a very different attitude had the opportunity been presented to him.
I spoke of the word "terrible", Mr. Speaker. What Mr. Eden was emphasizing was how terrible it was that there had been any lack of unity in details of that kind. I would like to quote from a statement he made published in the Daily Telegraph and Morning Post of London dated January 20, 1950:
The Far Eastern policies of the Atlantic powers and their friends are in a rather dismal tangle. They all apparently intend the same thing, but they are moving at so different a pace that they are jerkily out of step. The recognition of the communist government in China provides a recent example of this inconsistency, though not the most important. A divergence of view and discrepancy in action between the British and American governments in this instance may even do good if they draw attention in both countries to the need to co-ordinate their policies without further delay. As regards the actual recognition, there is a fair field for argument on practical, as well as on legal, issues. The decision to recognize is no doubt eventually inescapable, but it is a real misfortune that in this, as in other Far Eastern matters, we should be acting

piecemeal, both within the commonwealth and as between the commonwealth and the United States. The French, too, appear to be embarrassed by our timing.
Mr. Eden went on to point out the need for greater unity of action, and he emphasized that the problem was not merely military but economic. Of course, at that time there had been no attack in Korea. That, Mr. Speaker, changed the situation. There can be no question about that. But what Britain was out to do is another thing. However, Mr. Speaker, respecting as we do the motives of the government which took this action, and I respect the sincerity and high purpose of the government which made that decision, the fact remains that this decision is a decision for Canada. This decision is a decision for the government of Canada acting, to the best of their ability, as the interpreters of Canadian opinion and the wishes of our people. It is what is good for Canada, it is what is good for the future of our people and of all mankind.
Before I close these remarks let me deal with one other subject, because it is inseparably embraced in this whole problem. I refer to the question of trade. One of the arguments that has been put forward is that unless there is recognition we may deny trade with China which could be profitable to us. This widens out into the problem of trade with Russia. It would be well for every hon. member at this time and for every Canadian to review the history of trade with Russia between the two wars. I cannot recall any case where that trade had not turned out to our disadvantage. I cannot recall any case where the trade was not simply an extension of Russian policy to try to dominate the world.
Many hon. members here will recall what happened when the British market and then our own was affected by contracts for the purchase of lumber. Many people in this country whose work depends upon lumber-the cutting of lumber and the shipping of lumber- will recall that Amtorg made a contract in this country through its agent to sell lumber here at $12 a thousand and they had a proviso in that contract that they would adjust the price so that they would undersell any competitor under any new contract by $5 a thousand. The cost of cutting that lumber did not matter. That was a deliberate attempt to upset our economy in one aspect. So it was with pit props, so it was with pulp and so it was with other things that were sold not only to us but to the markets we ordinarily supply.
I am greatly concerned about the reports I read in the press of Britain talking about
External Affairs
buying Russian wheat, Russian grain, Russian lumber and other things that we ordinarily sell to Britain. Mr. Speaker, this is an economic problem as well as a military problem. Russia's declared intention is to do what they can to upset the economy of the free world. That is what the communists are working for in Canada, in the United States, in Britain and in every country where they are today. What other purpose could they have? Let us remember that it has no relationship whatever to the cost of the wheat, the lumber, the pit props or the other things they sell. Do any of our people forget how the gold is mined with which they are buying things today? Do any of our people forget how the greatest part of the labour is found to cut the lumber that is sold here? Do any of our people forget how the labour is found to cut the pit props that destroyed our market and are destroying it again? It is slave labour.
Let us remember that there are fifteen million people being worked to death in the concentration camps of Russia. I hope that the hon. member who spoke in such soft terms of Russia this afternoon will remember that fact. There are fifteen million human beings, like ourselves-the number of people that live in Canada-being worked to death in the concentration camps of Russia which in no way differ, except in their size, from the concentration camps of Germany to which the hon. member very properly referred. That is where they find their labour. Are we going to stand by without any question and see our markets occupied by the product of slave labour? For that is what it is.
Then what about China? The British recognized China in 1949 and they have not been able to reach any agreement with them yet as to trade arrangements. That is a long time. They could have conveniently waited and not have suffered any disadvantage. There are a few things to be done before we talk about trading with China, instead of having mere assurances and promises. What about the $12J million worth of ships which they stole? Hon. members have not forgotten the Ming Sung ships, I hope. More than assurances are needed. They are not only murderers; they are robbers.


An hon. Member:: They go together.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, they go together.


An hon. Member:: They are in the same camp.


George Alexander Drew: Yes; they are in the same camp. Those are the people in regard to whose activities some people are now expressing such mild and generous hopes.

Private Bills
Mr. Speaker, we do not need to sell our principles for a few dollars' worth of trade. We do not need to sell ourselves down the Yangtze river or any other river in the name of peace. We learned before that we do not get peace in that way. We learned before that the way to get terrible war is to encourage robbers and murderers to believe that we have not got the stuff it takes to stand up for our principles. Do not let anybody suggest that what I am saying is either warlike or encouraging war.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Listen to the fellow travellers laugh, Mr. Speaker. I repeat that if the people who spoke in this house and elsewhere, and from the very party whose new members find that suggestion somewhat amusing, meant what they said in 1940-and I believe they did-then they believe implicitly that the only way in which to preserve peace is to stand by your principles and to try to get the free nations to establish a pattern of principles that our opponents know will not be abandoned. That was what we said. That was the great lesson we said we had learned. Let us not forget it today.


Mr. Mclvor:: Five o'clock.


George Alexander Drew: All right, Mr. Speaker; if you wish to call it five o'clock, I shall break off at this point.


Mr. Speaker:: As it is five o'clock, the house will now consider private and public bills.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, March 23, consideration in committee of Bill No. 198, respecting Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Eudes-Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Name changed.
The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the clause carry?


Mr. Macdonnell:: May we have an explanation from the sponsor?


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Chairman-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you the new member for Hochelaga?


George James McIlraith: No. I have not yet moved to Hochelaga, Mr. Chairman. I still have my own identity and still am very happy to have it, whatever some others may think of that identity.
The Commerce Mutual Fire Insurance Company was incorporated by private act in 1927. At that time the business of the company was

that of a fire insurance company. Since that time it has added other types of insurance until at the present time about 60 per cent of its total business is fire insurance business and the other 40 per cent is divided among other types of insurance such as automobile insurance, sprinkler insurance, tornado insurance and so on.
The change of name proposed is to "The Commerce General Insurance Company". No objection was taken to the proposed new name either in the committee of the House of Commons or in the committee of the Senate, and there has been no objection by the superintendent of insurance who attended before both committees. There is of course provision in the bill for the corresponding name in the French language.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When the sponsor says no objection was raised by the superintendent of insurance, can we take it that it is a little more than that, that he is satisfied that there is no conflict of names? In other words, can we take it that we are passing it with his full approval?


George James McIlraith: Oh yes, that is quite right. He does not originate the bill in any way, but there is no objection of any kind either on the part of other firms or because of any possible conflict in the view of the superintendent of insurance.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

['I stand corrected. In explaining the sequence I forgot the incident of the question having been asked and answered and then the motion to adjourn the debate being moved. May I put the motion now?\nOn motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.']
Mr. Speaker:: There are several divorce bills on the order paper. Shall they all be taken in the same motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. W. G. Weir (for Mr. Hunter) moved: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill No. 379, for the relief of Gerald Emile La Grave.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 380, for the relief of Rita Boucher Dufort-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 381, for the relief of Lucy Halga Saunders Gibson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 382, for the relief of Antonie Lutz Jedrzejewski.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 383, for the relief of Jessie Clarke Thompson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 384, for the relief of Dorothy Coughtry Paquette.-Mr. Hunter.

Bill No. 385, for the relief of Isabel Ruth Smith Newey.'-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 386, for the relief of Eugene Clifford Carbonneau.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 387, for the relief of Jean Antoine Francois Armand.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 388, for the relief of Maria Clara Anita Cauchon Quirion.-Mr. Hunter.
Motion agreed to and bills read the second time.


Mr. Speaker:: The business which was to be considered during this hour having been dealt with, the house will now revert to the matter under consideration prior to five 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, 1954-53, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, in the remarks I have made I have in no way overstated my very strong and deep conviction that we are at a point in history very similar to that with which the free nations were confronted in the year 1935. Then people were ready to take assurances. In 1937 and 1938 the situation became still more critical. Finally, at the time of Munich, it reached its clearest expression when Czechoslovakia, brave, prosperous, free and democratic Czechoslovakia, was made a pawn and sacrificed to the vain hope of a peace that became less of a possibility because of that very act. It seems reasonably clear that if the nations had stood together without hesitation and had not relied on Hitler's assurances that he had no more territorial ambitions many millions of people who now lie in distant and, in many cases, unmarked graves, might be alive and enjoying the decent things that we ourselves share today.
I believe this is one of the most solemn hours in history. I believe that the Geneva conference beginning on April 26 can either be a second Munich or the glorious reassertion of the principles that were stated at Versailles in 1919 and abandoned, and the principles which at San Francisco in 1945 were incorporated in the United Nations charter and which we can still save. In addition, in the emphatic statements I have made against the recognition of China under present conditions and in the circumstances 83276-214
External Affairs
we see today, in the emphatic stand I have taken against the entry of communist China into the United Nations-that would come automatically with recognition and no argument will convince me to the contrary for the reasons I have stated and in the light of speeches to which I have already referred- and in the emphatic statements I have made about trade either with communist China or with Russia until there is evidence of a type of conduct and not mere assurances, I have sought to place before the house the things that I hope our government will not do. I have sought to place before the house the position that I hope they will take, and in saying that I know that I express the thoughts of those with whom I am associated. I wish to remove one uncertainty, and one alone, that may conceivably be raised at any time if anyone wished to try to interpret my words in that way.
No one can say that anything is forever in this very uncertain world. Only a few years ago we were fighting Germany and we were fighting Japan. A course of action was taken which, rightly or wrongly, was believed to be a course that would purge these countries of the people who had led them along the dreadful path they had followed. We are dealing with something very different here today.
The faith that most of us share in whatever manner we worship one God is a faith that always contemplates the possibility of a change in conduct, forgiveness and of the return to fellowship and decency of those who have offended against the laws of God and the laws of man. These same principles surely apply in the international field. Certainly we cannot contemplate the possibility of China, with its 400 million people, or Russia with its 200 million people and the many millions more who will be there in the years to come, being separated for all time from us or from ordinary, decent contacts. Surely our hope is that in God's good time, through evolution and changes which no one can envisage today, freedom will come to them, the kind of freedom that we wish for ourselves.
But no one suggests that we can establish that freedom by imposing our will on other people. It must come by steps which we cannot now foresee. However, this is something it seems to me we should remember. The question was asked earlier today, am I my brother's keeper? We thought we had answered that in September of 1939 when Canada, with Britain, France, Australia and many other nations took up arms, not because their soil was attacked but because of the

External Affairs
principle that freedom is indivisible and that an attack on Poland involved a breach of the principle which we could not disregard.
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. But by other devices within our power we should offer hope and encouragement to them to let them know we have not forgotten them. We should let them know their freedom is in our thoughts by following a course of action that will not encourage, but will discourage, those who seek to impose communist slavery on another nation.
How could recognition of communist China and its entry into the United Nations or the wide open exchange of goods be interpreted as anything else at this time but an encouraging act by us which indicates we do not really care very much. What greater encouragement could there be to those gallant souls behind the iron curtain, who still within their hearts and minds keep alive the great flame of freedom, than to have it known, through the many channels it does become known, we have said in no unmistakable terms that our principles are not for sale, and that the free nations stand together behind the principles asserted in the covenant of the United Nations in 1945? At least that succours them in their hour of great trial. There may be some surer and swifter way of wrecking the United Nations than letting communist China enter, but I cannot think of it. I do not think anyone else here can.
I wish to make a positive proposal to the government to balance these other statements I have made. The second article of the North Atlantic treaty refers to the economic aspects of this great struggle. It says:
The parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and wellbeing. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
I hope that at Geneva, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada will make a positive proposal that, along with the agreements that have been made under the North Atlantic treaty for military defence, there will also be positive and definite agreements that the nations of the free world meeting at Geneva -and they will have a chance of meeting

separately at that time-will bind themselves together so that on any trading arrangement they may meet on common ground as to the kind of trading that should take place or can take place beyond the iron curtain. Let us go back to what Mr. Eden said in January 1950, in that wise and very thought-provoking speech of his. In that speech he emphasized the need for united action. He emphasized the need for understanding each other's intentions in this field. He said that there should be a concrete strategy in all this area between the powers principally concerned and their burdens, both in troops and political responsibility, fairly adjusted. He said that a common policy should be founded upon determination to help the people with whom we are dealing as well as ourselves.
Then, he pointed out that we should agree amongst each other as to the course we are going to follow in the economic as well as the military sphere. Surely that is reasonable; surely that is practicable, and at a time when I see reports of possible sales of wheat from Russia to Great Britain, at a time when wheat is lying, millions of bushels of it, on the fields of western Canada. At a time such as this no time should be lost in seeking such a common understanding so that along with our combined effort in the military field there will be a combined and sensible arrangement so that we shall not upset each other's economic affairs and so that, through common understanding, we may march forward together under that dream of peace which will best be served if we hold firmly to the principles we expressed in 1945.


Mr. L. Philippe Picard (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, due to my lengthy journey to the Far East this is the first opportunity I have had this session to address the house. Perhaps therefore I may be permitted to congratulate you, sir, upon your election to the exalted position you occupy. May I join my tribute to those of many other hon. members and newsmen who have commented so favourably on the ability and fairness you have shown in presiding over our debates since your election to this office. Some say that, in a friendly way, you act with an iron hand in a velvet glove. However, all recognize the authority you have acquired, due to your sense of fairness and justice but, foremost of all, to the manifest competence you have in interpreting the rules of the house and giving the proper quotations in respect of precedents to substantiate your decisions. It must be helpful to you, sir, in your difficult task, to see such unanimity of appreciation of your competence.


Mr. Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, in this part of the house hon. members cannot hear what the hon. member for Bellechasse is saying. I wonder if he would mind using another microphone.


Louis-Philippe Picard: Well, I complained the other day because I could not hear the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent). I shall try to do better, and shall move to another microphone.


An hon. Member:: Take the front
microphone.


Louis-Philippe Picard: I shall do that. They are
promoting me day by day.
I think most hon. members will agree with me that this debate was initiated by a most comprehensive statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and an exceptionally candid clarification by the Prime Minister of whatever he may have said abroad concerning our relations with communist China. The country at large will welcome both statements as a clear expression of government policy, that leaves no grounds for misunderstanding. And I have reason to believe that this policy is one which will meet with the approval of Canadian citizens.
Canada's position has often been expressed as that of a peace-loving country that has no desire of aggrandizement, but that is determined to assume its share in all the moves devised to guarantee the peace of the world, as it may be threatened at any time by any world powers.
The hopes of western democracies and their allies that the post-war period would be one that would bring about a brave new world, or "one world" as it was then hopefully popular to call it, have been too soon shattered. The blunt attack on South Korea has, fortunately, wakened the world to the gravity of the situation and the urgency to face the impending menace that hung over all of us. And I am of the opinion that the sacrifices made by all who shared in the opposition to the invaders of South Korea will be recognized by historians of the future as having been of invaluable importance in ensuring a more healthy state of affairs in the world. Had not the United States, Canada and many other countries in the United Nations taken the stand they did take, the whole of southeast Asia would have gradually been brought under the tutelage of the Moscow-Peking alliance.
Strange as it may sound to many I am one who today entertains hopes that as a result of the action taken by the United Nations, and our attitude on the Korean venture, there is a better chance for the world to remain at peace than there would 83276-2144
External Affairs
have been if we had taken an attitude of laissez faire as some people suggested at the outbreak of the Korean war.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, in company with my wife during four and a half months I have visited all the free countries of the Far East and southeast Asia, as well as the three Asian members of the commonwealth, India, Ceylon and Pakistan. During the course of this trip I was privileged to have interviews with heads of states, prime ministers and/or foreign ministers of all the countries I visited, plus the administrative heads of Malaya and Hong Kong. I hasten to say that I have encountered few who were of the belief that there would be a war provoked in the near future either by communist China or by Soviet Russia if the rest of the world remains on its guard and maintains the present firm attitude. However, most of them recognize that any weakness or complacency on our part might give rise to a potential danger of war.
I believe, and this belief is confirmed by the opinions of many Asian statesmen I have met, that the consent by the communist group to the armistice in Korea as a result of a stalemate on the battlefield indicates a change in tactics, whatever may be the length of its duration. The effort, particularly in China, but also in Russia will, according to me, bear for some time to come on the consolidation of internal conditions, on the development of the country's resources, communications and economy, in the case of China; on the betterment of the standard of living in the case of Russia, while not lowering their present standard of armed equipment and carrying on their experimenting in other forms.
This new policy is evidently aimed at strengthening the regime internally. As a result of this, the world may enjoy a respite. If the western world is wise, wise enough not to be fooled by this apparent relaxation; if it remains ready and determined to face all and any eventualities, our generation may be spared a further conflict.
The most important thing to understand about Asia is that the period of colonial domination and of the exploitation of the peoples of other races or other customs is gone forever, and fortunately so. Asia has reached its majority; and it is in our interest and in the interests of the whole world, as well as the security of the whole world, to support her effectively in the elaboration of a system of government which will permit her to develop her resources for her own benefit, if we do not want her to join the communist bloc.

External Affairs
The dominant idea arising out of my observations is the evident current of nationalism which has spread throughout Asia, the anxiety of people to shake off all external domination and attain self-government, which is an accomplished fact for most of them, and takes the form of impatient aspiration by those who have not yet reached their full independence.
The recent emancipation of many Asian countries has been accompanied by difficult readjustments of their internal economies, by administrative problems arising out of the setting up of new mechanisms of government and new systems of civil service. As the nationalist trend took more and more importance and led to the liberation of many countries, the communist forces tried to ride the wave in order to further their own ends, but their strength evidently came more from the support they got from the outside than from the true aspirations of the people themselves.
The masses in Asia have lived for centuries under deplorable economic conditions as compared with those prevailing in Europe and America. It is natural that their new leaders want to improve their lot. It is also natural that opinions may vary as to the best means to bring about the reforms considered necessary to reach that end. There are in every country communist groups of different strengths and number who receive help and encouragement from communist China and Soviet Russia. Fortunately there are also strong and determined men who prefer the pattern of government of the western democracies and their economic and social policies that have given to the western world a standard of living that is higher than that of any other part of the world.
I am of opinion that any change toward communism in Asia will not come from the action of the masses or from any internal upheaval. If it should come it will be through invasion or through infiltration from the outside.
The relative success reached by a country under communist regime or by a country following our pattern of government in raising the standard of living of the masses may determine in years to come the orientation of the tendencies of Asian people toward one form of government or another. Perhaps I may be permitted here to give a sentence or two of the conversation I had with Prime Minister Nehru when I was in India. He candidly said-and there was no restriction to my quoting it or stating that he had said such a thing-that if we have peace for 20 years in Asia, in 20 years from now we shall be able to determine where Asia

will go, whether it will stay with a form of government similar to that of the western democracies or whether it will turn to communism. He said after 20 years of peace one would be able to determine which of the two systems has given the two countries, India and China, a better standard of living; and if China, although it will have purged millions of people, and taken away private property and the liberties of the individuals, is given a better standard of living in 20 years than we in India shall have been able to give by keeping the liberties of the people, by carrying on the form of government we now have, he said, if China puts on a better showing in 20 years, our system may be superseded by another system. But he added he felt and was convinced that they in India would be able to bring about a better condition of life for the masses with the system they have and also keep the liberties of the individuals.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, it is so important that adequate help be granted to the less fortunate parts of the world that are still outside the communist orbit. This is why the help given by the appropriate organization of the United Nations or by the United States under the Point Four program or by the commonwealth under the Colombo plan, is so important and so vital to keep Asia outside the grasp of the communist world.
Although I started my trip from west to east and started in Japan it may be more opportune to speak first of the commonwealth nations. I was seven weeks in all in the three different countries of the commonwealth that are inhabited by people with a culture that is vastly superior to many. I refer to the great civilizations of India, Ceylon and Pakistan. But one must not forget when speaking of India and such countries that there is not only one angle to be considered, historical monuments of the past and politics of the present. India is a modern nation; it is becoming modernized gradually. It is highly industrialized. I do not think it is right to generalize but when people approach me they say: Is it not poor in India; is it not terrible in India? Well, that is far from being the fact, because India is becoming modernized and India's industry is taking great strides in its march to the future.
In the six thousand miles we covered in India I visited industries and saw industries in far remote places where I did not expect to see them. Although the improvement in the standard of living, according to statistics, is one per cent over the last five years, I have confidence that if the country carries on united as it is now and with a unity of purpose of action it will make great strides in the years to come.

These three nations are headed at the moment by men of great value, Nehru in India, Mohammed Ali in Pakistan and Sir John Kotalawala in Ceylon. I was privileged to have a long interview with Mr. Nehru and Sir John Kotalawala. Mr. Ali was out of Pakistan at that time. I had an interview with Sir Zafrullah Khan, the foreign minister. The impression I gained was this. We can entertain great hopes for our sister nations of the commonwealth.
I may say in passing that the Prime Minister's trip over there was looked forward to with great anticipation. They were anxious to see him, and if the only result of the trip to our sister nations of the commonwealth was that we showed we want to understand them, to fraternize with them and to know them better and that we consider them strong elements in the commonwealth, then the trip itself would have served a useful purpose. Judging by the accounts we have seen in the papers, the expectations were really fulfilled, and the message of brotherhood of man, of friendship of one part of the commonwealth to another brought by the Prime Minister, helped to strengthen, unify and consolidate the links between us and this important part of the world which is, after all, if we glance at any map, such a subcontinent that in itself it may balance

if it succeeds in its present adventure of trying to improve the conditions of the people through democratic means-the efforts of China to do the same under the communist regime.
Much has been said about the vagaries of world politics, and history provides us with examples of strange shifts of national feelings toward former enemies. None of this will appear stranger in years to come than the change of attitude of the western democracies toward Germany and Japan, the enemies of yesterday, whose then leaders ordered or condoned actions that were considered unforgivable for generations. Yet today we find ourselves courting those same nations and hoping that they will side with us in the eventuality of another conflict.
I have no time to go into the question of German rearmament or the situation prevailing in Germany, but I should like to say just one word about Japan where I was for three weeks. The most acute political question there at the moment is the revision of the constitution with the right to rearm without any control from the outside, and of course disguised under the veil of selfdefence. How can we object to it if we ourselves say that we must help make secure the east for those who want to carry on with the system of government we have instead of their falling under the Moscow alliance?
External Affairs
We are faced with the same problem in Germany. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) spoke a moment ago about China. The same may be applied to communist China in a way, although it may be argued that in China it is the present regime that committed the atrocities that he talked about, but yet we are ready in a minute to be friendly and to shake hands with the Germans and Japanese who committed the same atrocities in the last war.
Of course in Japan and Germany we are dealing with a new government, and after speaking to some of its members in Japan I have no doubt about their sincerity to determine whether democracy as exists here will prevail in their country. I hope I was mistaken but I have not come to the conclusion that it was yet part of the Japanese mentality. But I hope it will be proved that the constitution set up by General MacArthur will bring the Japanese to adopt the sort of democratic ideas that we have in this part of the world.
But I fear that there, as in Germany and in Italy, the former ruling cliques are ever ready and waiting in the shadows to see whether they can get a chance to come forward again. That, of course, is much less true of Japan than it is of Germany or Italy.
When we look at the lessons of history I do not think we would be condoning the actions some of these people have committed whether they be Japanese or Germans, by accepting them as our allies; yet is it not strange how differently we look at things when we need someone, and is it not strange how history demonstrates the practical attitude adopted by men when they find they are in need of the help of such nations as were their enemies?
Japan might very well be the first bastion of defence in the Far East and we have got to assist them to amend their constitution so that they will be in a better position as regards self defence, and so that if it ever becomes necessary they can assist us. I venture to predict the day is not too far distant when Japan will again become a world power industrially and even militarily, even although economic conditions are bad and they have lost their markets in China and Indonesia. They have had a very difficult time in restoring their economy but they are a hard-working people and, like the Germans, I do not think it will be long before they have fully recovered, with the generous help granted them by the United States.
Let us talk now of the line of defence in the Far East should there be any attack made by the communist countries. As I just

External Affairs
said Japan is the first and northernmost point, then Okinawa, then Taiwan, then the Philippines. If the United States have come to the conclusion, as they apparently have, that any threat to southeast Asia may come from communist China it is reasonable that they should try to establish such a line of defence. It is understandable that they should help and contribute to the armament of Japan so that it may ensure its selfdefence. It is not surprising either that they made of Okinawa the strong arsenal it is at the moment. I am not revealing any secret when I describe Okinawa as a stronghold and evidently the formidable base from which could start any retaliation in that sector, action as envisaged by Mr. Dulles. It is known that the Americans have spent hundreds of millions on its defences.
The next natural base is Taiwan. To leave an empty unused space between Okinawa and the Philippines would be unthinkable if we carry on from the same premise of the potential attack from the north.
How can the U.S. recognize communist China and yet maintain bases on Taiwan that is under the control of the legitimate government of China that was expelled from the mainland. If Taiwan is part of a first line of defence how can you turn your back to the Chiang Kai-shek government. When we come to consider the Chinese problem we realize that it is more complex than most people seem to realize.
One should not lose sight of the necessity of stopping bloodshed in Indo-China as it has been stopped in Korea and the only people we can talk to in this regard is the de facto government of the mainland, the one controlling the forces we have to fight.
The problem of recognizing China seems to be quite acute here. I did not think it would be considered of such serious importance as was demonstrated by the speeches from two parties of the opposition side of the house. I believe we must be somewhat more philosophic in looking at such things and we should take lessons from history. I do not believe we should sacrifice any of our principles, but, on the other hand, it may also be practical to look at these things from day to day and do what we can if we want to save lives in Indo-China.
If we want to prevent further bloodshed whether it be in Indo-China or Korea it is better to keep an open mind. The time may come some day and soon when we will have to talk to these people and face them across a green table.
We must however maintain a prudent attitude until we have evidence, if we ever get

it, that communist China and Soviet Russia have changed their attitude as far as expansion abroad is concerned. I, for one, as I stated earlier in these remarks, am of the opinion that their present tactics appear to be different and that we may yet reach an acceptable compromise that will ensure a peaceful modus vivendi to southeast Asia.
No one should be too dogmatic about a complex situation resulting from the split of sovereignty over Chinese territories. The government recognized by most nations is still the one that was prevailing on the mainland until the communist victory, when it transferred its seat to Taiwan. The government ruling de facto on the mainland is the one that took power through the help of Japanese material handed over to them by Russia upon the fall of Japan, but no matter whether it was through the stupidity of puritanical American advisers who cut short all help to Chiang on the pretext that all was not well in the treasury of the Kuomintang administration; whether it was through the mushrooming strength of Mao whose victory over the war lords meant more men available for enlistment in his army; or more generals hastening to climb on the bandwagon while the going was good; whether it was due mainly to help from Soviet Russia or from the acquisition of Japanese materials which fell into the hands of the Russians after the fall of Japan and which they handed over to Mao.
On the other hand, you cannot turn around and say that the people in Taiwan are bandits and that you do not want to deal with them either. I venture to say, though it might not please everyone, that when the role of Chiang Kai-shek is considered by historians the complaints that some of his followers may have used public funds will be of small importance. He will be remembered as the man who unified China through the success of his many campaigns against the war lords, and the one man who really effectively set up a central administration at most points in that vast country except in those areas controlled by Mao's armies supported from Moscow.
I believe many hon. members in this house would be interested in a book written by Hollington Tong, a prominent Chinese writer who is now ambassador in Japan. It may be said that being a supporter of Chiang he is biased but I think it is a fair appraisal of the generalissimo and would enlighten many on this period of Chinese history.
Whatever weaknesses the Chiang administration might have shown in some parts of the mainland I believe Chiang will be recognized as the champion of a different approach

to the organization of China, and one that may not have been as democratic as ours in practice, but one based upon a series of projected reforms that had to be continually delayed due to the interminable warfare with the communist armies. Now that he is doing that reform gradually in Formosa, you will say: "it means nothing, it is a small part of the country and he did not do it on the mainland when he was there". But how could he start doing it on the mainland when he had to fight all the time the communist armies over the northern parts of the country?
There are two main points of view concerning the recognition of communist China and its admission to the United Nations. The first is that of those who express wishful thinking or who will stand only on principles and do not want to admit the facts. That is a tempting attitude for good people and nice people to take, but is it a possible one to take for any length of time? You will say it is not right to deal with a bandit, a thief or a murderer or to enter into an agreement with him, that it is compounding a felony. That may be true, but the history of the world shows many such things that have been done, even by men in a higher place than that of ministers of state in a democratic country. They are those who oppose the admission of China or even its recognition. I have the text of a petition signed by prominent conservative Americans-they are mostly Republicans but there are a few Democrats-and sent to Washington opposing any recognition of China or displaying any weakness toward China. There are some things that may attract a lot of people to that school of thought. They say:
Its admission would destroy the prestige and the position of the United States and of the free world in Asia. The countries of that continent which still resist communist aggression or infiltration would be discouraged by the cynical surrender of the free world to expediency and appeasement and the betrayal of the ideals of the United Nations. The Asian nations, in turn, would then make fatal compromises with the communist bloc.
That is all right. All of that is right, so it gives you ground to think twice before you go ahead. Another point that they make -one of the two points that I think are good-is this:
The admission of the so-called Chinese People's Republic to the United Nations would encourage subversive totalitarian movements in the free nations of the world in the expectation that their success would be sanctioned by the free nations which still survive. Thus the danger of a new war would be vastly increased by the rewards offered to aggressors.
I have other such declarations. But, Mr. Speaker, there is also a second school of thought. Mao's government controls the forces who were helping the North Koreans
External Affairs
and they are the ones who are helping in Indo-China. Therefore they are the only ones who could-if they should be sincerely willing to do so-ensure peace in the Far East since they have been supporting the offenders, and "supporting" is a mild word. This is a practical point of view and may be the only one to be considered in the last resort should they give any appearance of doing what I stated earlier I hoped, namely consolidating their own position internally instead of furthering communist expansion abroad.
What I have in mind is this. I do not think it is right for anybody at a given moment like this, when we are not faced with a decision, to come out categorically and say "We must recognize" or "We cannot recognize" and that the government must state its policy to date or what it will do maybe six months or a year from now. If you review the history of the world I think you will find that what I am saying makes sense. It has been proven time and again that you have had to negotiate with this or that nation, without liking it, but in order to prevent bloodshed.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) say that he wanted the assurance that there would be no recognition on promises; and he talked of bloodshed in Korea. There is also bloodshed in Indo-China, as he pointed out. Could it be possible that one day that bloodshed would be stopped by meeting these people-as we will meet them in April-across the green table? Could something be gained by it? That is the ultimate end. That is the ultimate aim we should have, namely to prevent a state of war from continuing and spreading. I would not say that the end justifies the means, although a lot of people have practised that policy, even in high places in the hierarchy of the world. But in this case it might be so, and it has proven good on many other occasions in the world.
I thought it was strange to hear the Leader of the Opposition at one moment comparing Churchill and his V-for-victory sign with Chamberlain and his umbrella. When the Leader of the Opposition spoke of this being another Munich and that we would see the gentleman coming back with the umbrella, I was surprised to hear the man who-and rightfully so-must admire Mr. Churchill, comparing him with the man with the umbrella. I want to refer to the statement, as it has been quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, as having been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and which commenced in this way, "If China by a conciliatory attitude at Geneva

External Affairs
shows that there is a chance to bring about peace". I do not know whether or not he said it but in any event I do not think it makes such nonsense. I think we have to look at facts as they present themselves and to take all means at our disposal to prevent bloodshed.
The French are in a difficult position today. I was for some time in France. They are not so enthusiastic about it. Their principles are the same. As far as their material gains in Indo-China are concerned, they have been gone for a long time. It is not imperialist aims that keep them there. It is the word given to a number of people who have carried on, who have been loyal to them over the generations and who will not stand in such a good position if Ho Chi Minh wins. It is a sort of word of honour obligation under which the French have to carry on, and I do not think they are delighted to do so. I do not think that anybody should criticize the French for being awkward in joining EDC when their blood is being shed in IndoChina, when they are carrying on-and have been doing so up until now-all alone. These are all things that we ought to consider in a different and more quiet way.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-Philippe Picard: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I was far from finished covering the ground with respect to the Far East but as I see that I have very little time left I think I should jump a few nations and reach the Middle East. Last year, on February 13, 1953, I gave an account to the house of the trip I had made to the Middle East and some of the conclusions I had reached then. Of course I do not want to repeat that but there is one thing I should like to repeat. It is the importance of the Arab world today, their growing influence in United Nations affairs through their solidarity, and the advisability of Canada having diplomatic missions in such nations.
I understand that some of these nations are already represented by consuls or otherwise in Ottawa, and I just want to repeat what I said last year, that Canada should not hesitate to extend its diplomatic representation in that direction. Trade with these countries is getting more and more important. I might say that I have seen there that France and Great Britain have been replaced largely by the United States and that if we had missions abroad it might help our own trade considerably.

I think, as I have said before, that three missions are in order, one in Egypt, one in Israel and one in Beirut to serve Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. I might briefly tell the house of an incident that happened to me during the course of that trip. I met a German businessman who was on a two-day trip from Cairo back to Frankfurt just to check the prices that his firm had quoted on a contract and which he thought were slightly higher than those of a competitor. The Germans are getting in heavily throughout the Middle East at the moment, and I think it would be quite opportune if Canada decided to extend its diplomatic representation to the Arab countries as well as to Israel.
I know there might be many difficulties in the way. Although I think Cairo is the most important, some may think that until the situation is cleared between Egypt and Great Britain it might be better to wait. I have heard somebody say that if we go there and seem to side with the Egyptians it will not be so good for the unity of the commonwealth, and if we side with the British there is no use in going there now because it will not make us popular with the Egyptians. But one way or the other I still put this thought before the house and the government.
During the last lap of my trip I passed through Iran and I should like to give a more encouraging word of what I saw this year than was the case last year. I spoke last year of the deplorable state of affairs prevailing through the failure of Britain and Iran to come to terms. I think the situation is much more encouraging this year. I met the foreign minister, Mr. Entezam, and the finance minister, Mr. Ali Amini and the British charge d'affaires, Mr. Dennis King. A better spirit is evident. We cannot overestimate, I think, the importance of a speedy solution of the oil problem. There is a decided improvement in the British approach and apparently a sincere desire on the part of the present government of Iran to come to terms. Each side seems prepared to consider the sensitiveness of the other and to deal tactfully in the effort to reach a compromise based, not on the sanctity of contracts no matter how unfair, as was the British attitude up until last year, nor on an arrogant and obstinate nationalism, as was Mossadegh's attitude, but based on equity and fairness and a reasonable and equitable share of the profits.
In conclusion may I repeat that the government's policy, as expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) will, I have no doubt, have the approval of the people of Canada as a policy of open-minded realists unwilling to be swayed by

emotional upsurges but also unwilling to take commitments one way or the other that may be unwarranted tomorrow. Canada must and will, under its present leaders, do everything to ensure its safety and the peace of the world, which does not mean only in the matter of preparation to resist any offensive but also in the field of diplomacy and human relations, as was so aptly done by the Prime Minister during his memorable tour around the world.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, no one surveying the international scene today can have many, if indeed any, illusions about the long-term future. In the long run I am pessimistic. In the short run, however, there have been certain significant changes which might be welcome. Since the death of Stalin there has been an obvious change in the policy of the Kremlin, and it is one which I think we ought to consider carefully. What it means I do not profess to know, if indeed it means anything. Nor for a moment do I believe that the long-term underlying policy of the Kremlin has changed one iota, but it is apparent that we have been given some extra time. That extra time we can use not only for our own defence but for the defence of the world.
The question is: What use are we making of that time which has been given to us? Today humanity possesses the most fantastic weapons of destruction. Perhaps their very fantastic nature makes for still greater security for all of us, for it is realized that the magnitude of devastation which could be wreaked upon the earth now is such that it makes war almost impossible to contemplate. That is the hope, and it is a hope which is shared in other quarters. I notice that Sir Winston Churchill, speaking in the British House of Commons last December, had this to say:
I have sometimes the odd thought that the annihilating character of the new weapons of destruction may bring an utterly unforeseeable security to mankind. A war which begins by both sides suffering what they dread most-and that is undoubtedly the case now-is less likely to occur than one which dangles the lurid prizes of former ages before ambitious eyes.
I think there is conceivably some justification for his view and, as I said, we have been granted some more time. To what use are we putting it? I have the unhappy feeling that the government is squandering that time. There seems to be a lack of urgency for those things which today ought to be urgent. I want to deal with some of them, particularly at first with certain aspects of NATO. On the 4th of February, 1949, at page 239 of Hansard, 83276-215
External Affairs
the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had this to say about the North Atlantic treaty:
I feel strongly . . . that this regional association must be far more than a military alliance. It must make a collective contribution to the social and economic betterment of the peoples of its member states.
We believed that too and because we believed it we voted for the treaty. I am not so sure that that view is still valid. I am not so sure that NATO has become anything other than a military alliance, and if history is any criterion a military alliance is not the strongest or the best basis on which to build our security. But what has been done along these lines of economic and social betterment?
In the January issue of the monthly bulletin of the Department of External Affairs we are given a report of the North Atlantic council ministerial session which met in Paris last December. I only want to deal with the economic and the political aspects of this report, rather than the military aspects, which will be discussed in greater detail at a later stage in the session. The government's version of this report said, in part:
The second conclusion-
The first dealt with military matters.
-was that the policy of the NATO countries in these circumstances must be to pursue the twin aims of building the defensive and economic strength and political unity of the Atlantic community, while at the same time seeking to negotiate on outstanding differences wherever possible . . .
That is a statement of policy and a statement of principle that is impeccable but in actual fact what does it add up to? How are we building this vitally necessary political unity in the Atlantic community? I am certain that we cannot build it by peripatetic cabinet ministers going to Paris, nor can we build it on the civil service in Paris, no matter how admirable it is; nor on the general staff, no matter how excellent it may be. I think the Department of External Affairs has been lax in not trying to convey to the people of Canada what NATO really can be, not what it is-God forbid. It is not adequate in any sense just now, but the department might convey what NATO could be from the point of view of the Atlantic community and in the larger sense of what it means to the security of all of us.
I have argued in this house on other occasions that it would be desirable to have an Atlantic assembly made up for the most part of representatives of the various parliaments who, perhaps during certain weeks in the year, would review the work of NATO. I think for the sake of NATO itself it is vitally necessary that such a review be undertaken. I do not like the idea of cabinet

External Affairs
ministers controlling the destinies of NATO and not always reporting back to the house, because of lack of time or for some other reason. I do not like the idea of our policy being in the hands of men, no matter of what good will, who are essentially generals, admirals, air marshals and so on. I should like to see a more democratic control over the policies of NATO. That is why I have suggested this concept of the Atlantic assembly.
I noticed with some interest in one of the December issues of the London Economist there was an article arguing along somewhat similar lines to mine. It stated, quite significantly, that Canada was one of the nations that was dragging its feet in this matter. We are entitled to know whether there is any justification at all behind that charge. I am quite satisfied that it is not true of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The other day, having read some of the debates in the British Hansard, I put down a question on the order paper inquiring as to whether any invitation had been received from NATO for parliamentarians to go over to Paris to see what was going on. If so, I asked, what was the position of the government? Up to the present, I have received no answer. In due course, I shall undoubtedly get one.
If there has been such an invitation extended I should like to know what or who is blocking it. As I say, I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs would object to it. The other ministers who are primarily interested in NATO are the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott). Perhaps they object to this idea of members of parliament examining NATO. I am convinced that from the point of view of the general well-being of NATO itself it would be advisable to create some sort of assembly such as I have suggested as soon as possible. If NATO is going to be a success, then the Canadian people must know what NATO is doing, and what NATO hopes to do. I believe the best way of conveying that information would be through members of parliament.
Now, what about the economic and social picture? Again I refer to the same copy of the external affairs bulletin, but this time to page 4 where we are told:
The broad lines of future NATO defence planning to meet the threat of aggression over an extended period were agreed. Member countries would have to be prepared to maintain a high level of military preparedness, while at the same time strengthening their economic and social structures.
As I have said, we in the C.C.F. argued even before NATO became reality that the very essence of such an agreement would be the economic co-operation which would

result from it. We have seen lamentably little of such economic co-operation in the last few years. I am not quite certain as to the government concept of this economic co-operation. I know there have been some very distressing statements made by ministers of the crown, and not the least distressing was that made by the Minister of Finance at Couchiching, if the report in the Globe and Mail of August 14, 1952, is correct. The minister stated:
If the European countries, six years after the war and with the aid they have received, are not able to make their economy viable we can't do it for them. Any nation can only survive as a result of its own efforts.
There is just enough truth in that to make it brutally unkind. If we have prosperity in this country, it is due in no small measure to the havoc and the destruction which has been wreaked in Europe as a result of war. There are many areas in Europe which have been devastated twice within the history of one generation. To expect Europe, immediately after the war, to become again an economically sound area, is to expect the impossible. Europe has to rebuild itself; Europe has to improve its standards of living if the member nations in the west are going to become allies worth anything at all to us. The standards of living are declining if one can take as a yardstick the wholesale price indices that one sees published in various countries.
There can be no security in NATO as long as the economies of our European allies are weak. Yet, what has been done in the nature of non-military co-operation? There may have been changes lately I do not know. But I do know the Secretary of State for External Affairs was asked that question some time ago by the then member for Melfort. This is what he had to say, and it is worth-while considering what he said on page 672 of Hansard in 1952 in the light of what the Minister of Finance had to say later:
I cannot give any information in concrete terms as to what has been done in the field to which I just referred.
He was talking about the field of economic aid.
Indeed, very little has been done in the field of non-military co-operation. I admit that, and I think we must all be disappointed that more has not been done.
We are not only disappointed, we are alarmed that more has not been done because we can see the consequences very clearly of what is going to happen to NATO if the economies of our allies crumble and weaken still further.

As the Minister of Finance said:
If the European countries, six years after the war and with the aid they have received, are not able to make their economy viable we can't do it for them.
What sort of aid have they been receiving? The aid they have been receiving under NATO looked like a substantial amount in the estimates each year and I have no doubt it has been substantial. When one analyses that aid a little farther we see we have been rearming our allies in Europe with equipment which we have had in storage and that was not being used; with equipment which conceivably could be secondhand and had been used; with equipment which possibly our own armed forces thought was out of date. Not only have we given our allies that sort of equipment but we have charged up a sum, the total of which I forget, but I do know there is a balance of some $300 million lying at the credit of an account in the Department of National Defence as a result of the charge being made for the arms which we have given to our allies.
I have argued previously on the basis that, economic defence being important as it is, we should consider using this $300 million for economic defence, rather than leave it in the particular fund in the Department of National Defence. Our allies in Europe have been given arms by Canada and by the United States. That perhaps may be the beginning of their troubles because our allies have to maintain those arms in an adequate state of repair. Our European allies have to make up for obsolescence, and eventually re-equip themselves. It must be admitted, their economy being in the position it is, that this will be a decided drain on them, with the resulting effect of a still lower standard of living.
That the government is concerned about the situation, I have no doubt. Again the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) said this in November last year in New York:
Frankly we in Canada are genuinely concerned about the thin and rather brittle economic base on which this political and military co-operation has been built.
And I say he has every right to be concerned, as indeed all of us should be concerned. But why is this economic base so thin, why is it so brittle? The best answer was given in a dispatch from Ankara which appeared in the New York Times. Discussing the forthcoming visit of the president of Turkey to the United States, the report said:
The fundamental thesis of the Turkish authorities is that relatively small outlays of further American aid to stimulate agricultural and industrial production here would result in further significant increases in Turkish exports, with a corresponding 83270-2154
External Affairs
increase in the country's ability to purchase military equipment with its own foreign exchange resources.
They contend that the mere provision of military aid under the mutual defence assistance program, while maintaining Turkey's military strength from day to day, fails to attack the basis of the problem of enabling Ankara to support its military establishment from its own resources without resorting to deficit financing.
That is true of Turkey. I am equally convinced it is true of many other European countries who are our allies. Military aid is not sufficient. They require some sort of economic aid. And yet, again, to revert to that dreadful speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) at Couchiching, he said, of our friends in western Europe: "We cannot expect them to become pensioners of Canada". They do not expect that. But what we have done to help them in the field of economic co-operation has been precious little. And, so long as that is so, NATO must remain something that is basically weak.
There is another area, in Asia, where our economic aid policy has to be considered. Throughout the last few years we have consistently attacked the government for its deplorable inaction, and just as consistently the government has defended itself. We have said that the provision of arms is no protection against hunger. Certainly it is no protection against ideas. The only way we can combat ideas is by showing those people that we have better ideas, and I believe we have.
The only way we can combat hunger is not by making guns available but by offering food to those who need it. Perhaps our greatest defence in Asia lies in feeding the hungry; and clothing the naked; and I think, in principle, that throughout the years the minister has agreed with us. Yet, very little has been done about it.
I would just like to remind the house of what the minister has said. He said things with which I agree completely, and which had our support, and which we accepted as government policy, only to find later that the government had done nothing to substantiate what the minister had said would be achieved.
On February 22, 1950, as reported at page 131 of Hansard, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said this:
The social and economic danger arises out of the fact that the people out there are learning that independence is not enough. The agitation for freedom has stirred up in them other desires; for improvements in their conditions of life; for a change from distress, privation and even starvation; for a change from a life expectancy of twenty years and an average income of less than $50 a year.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I feel impelled to take part in this debate because in such serious times as exist today

External Affairs
each hon. member has a responsibility toward his people, toward the people of Canada and toward his own conscience.
The leader of this group has put on record, not only yesterday but in days gone by, the official position of this party in respect to external affairs and many other matters. I am happy to support and stand by every word my leader pronounces as Social Credit policy, and should I at any time in or out of this house discuss matters with perhaps a little different emphasis I do so as expressing my own personal views.
Before dealing with a few matters in respect to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), I wish to say a word about the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). I am not going to discuss the content of his speech, but I am interested for one particular reason. Some of us go through this country in an attempt to interpret the political policies of the various parties in this country. In this respect I wish to be fair with my friends in the C.C.F. party. Therefore I would like to ask the leader of that party if the speech we listened to this afternoon was a pronouncement of C.C.F. policy. The leader of the C.C.F. party is not in the house at the moment but there will be plenty of time for him to tell the house whether the speech we listened to this afternoon from the hon. member for Nanaimo is in reality C.C.F. policy. If he does not tell us then we can only interpret his silence as being in the affirmative.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs replies to this debate this evening or later on in this debate I would like to hear whether he agrees with that speech. The speech was a very colourful one in more ways than one, but I would like to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs say, "No, the position I take and the position my government takes is altogether contrary to the position taken by the hon. member for Nanaimo."
I would like to deal with one or two things which occurred to me as I listened to the speech made yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He dealt with the forthcoming conference at Geneva and expressed the hope that some good would come of that conference. I believe he expressed the hope of everyone. But I would like to say this. I would like to know before that conference takes place what Canada's position is as regards whether we are going to grant any more concessions which will play into the hands of Russian imperialism. It seems that no matter what
iMr. Hansel!.]
conferences have been held in the past the Soviets have come out on top and always with more than they entered the conference with, and the rest of the free nations always come out with less. Surely we should call a halt to this thing sooner or later, and as far as I am concerned the sooner the better.
The minister dealt with collective security and I suppose in these days when the world has become so small and nations so interrelated we cannot blind our eyes to what is generally known as collective security. But I would remind the house that the greatest demonstration of collective security which we have just observed in Korea failed. I do not mean by that that we should not adhere to collective security. The minister has himself pointed out that we cannot have continental security without collective security. I agree with that, and I believe we all agree with that. But the question which arises in my mind in this regard relates to the conference which was recently held for the purpose of formulating certain policies with respect to collective security for the North and South American countries. I refer to the conference held recently at Caracas. Canada was absent from that conference and some of us are not altogether satisfied yet as to why Canada was absent from that conference. If we are to have collective security for North and South America and that security is discussed at a conference, then surely Canada, which has become a strong nation today, particularly in its potential, should at least have had a part in that conference.
Another thought which came to my mind in regard to the minister's speech, and I cannot help mentioning this, is that it appeared to me that he played the double role of Secretary of State for External Affairs and Minister of National Defence. I am quite conscious of the fact that it is hard in these days to tell just where the responsibility of the Department of National Defence ceases, and the responsibility of the Department of External Affairs begins, or vice versa. But I mention this because I fear that we may eventually experience the sort of blunders which have been made in recent years by the state department of the United States, the blunder of interference in the military who in times of a shooting war are out to win.
The minister analysed at some length the speech made by Mr. Dulles consequent to the Caracas conference. I do not wish to be harsh but I must confess that the status of Mr. Dulles has been raised considerably in my estimation in the last few months, particularly since that conference, because

I believe he manifested some courage in what he said and attempted to do at the Caracas conference. I cannot help feeling that the minister may have slapped his wrist, and I do not believe Mr. Dulles' actions call for that sort of treatment, for if there ever was a time when courage and confidence are required at conferences it is today.
I would like to say in passing, Mr. Speaker, one or two things about the Prime Minister's speech. But before doing so I would like to compliment the Prime Minister for the very fine speech he made the other day when he returned from his world tour. I think everyone enjoyed that speech. The Prime Minister did not attempt to go into the various details of his conversations with various dignitaries and men holding official positions in various governments, but he gave us a very delightful review of his trip and I believe we all felt very happy that he was able to enjoy such a trip.
When he was speaking to us yesterday I thought we would have heard something more with respect to the things he discussed with other world leaders and a little bit more of what we might expect with respect to our relationship with them. Of course, I am quite conscious of the fact that, as he spoke with them, whatever he learned or whatever advice he was able to give results in government policy; and perhaps we cannot expect him to reveal to us at this time too much with respect to government policy as it may take place in days to come.
But there is one thing I would point out and it is this. Almost the entire speech made by the Prime Minister yesterday was confined to an explanation of his remarks to the press respecting the recognition of China. It is difficult for me to think that such mistakes were made with respect to any interviews the press may have had with the Prime Minister. I find it difficult for this reason. I am quite certain that the reporters wanted to report as accurately as possible; and I am quite certain that the Prime Minister is a seasoned "interviewee". When it comes to a question of the recognition of China, surely the Prime Minister should have watched his words most carefully. I know that the Prime Minister has said that sometimes these questions in press interviews are put to one with machine-gun rapidity, but that does not mean to say that they must be answered with machine-gun rapidity. When a question of such great importance as this was put to him it seems to me that he should have weighed his answer carefully, watched every word and determined that what went into the press was exactly what he said. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. If there was no
External Affairs
intention whatsoever of recognizing China, it would not have been difficult for the Prime Minister, in answer to a question of that kind, to say "No", that is the answer, and put it down "n-o"; that would have settled it. But that is not what was reported and that is not what the Prime Minister said. Because he did not give a flat "no", complications arose.
The Prime Minister had talked with Mr. Nehru. We all know what Mr. Nehru's position is with respect to this matter. I am wondering if he did not influence the Prime Minister to the extent that he was toying with the idea, and nobody is going to tell me that the Department of External Affairs has not been toying with the idea of recognizing China.
Another thing I want to point out is this. The Prime Minister had a good deal to say with respect to what might be the meaning of the word "recognition"; and in amplifying that theme, he stated that at the present time the government had no intention of diplomatic recognition. However, he carefully avoided telling us one thing; at least, if he did not carefully avoid it, it is a singular thing that he did not tell us whether or not they would support recognition of China at the United Nations.


An hon. Member:: Red China.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes; Red China, if you wish to put it that way. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs replies, Mr. Speaker, and I am wondering whether he is listening to me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: We are all listening to you.


Ernest George Hansell: He had better listen to this because we want an answer. We want to know whether or not when he goes to the United Nations he is going to acquiesce in the pressure that is put on there for the recognition of Red China in the United Nations. I think we should have an answer to that question when the minister replies.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I may not have a chance to reply for a very long time, I had better say at once that the answer to that question is no. I do not intend to acquiesce to that kind of pressure or indeed to the pressure of the hon. gentleman.


Ernest George Hansell: I am highly pleased with the answer and I think we all should be pleased with it. I will shake the minister's hand at any time on that answer. As to

External Affairs
the second part of it, I do not know but I rather think he did acquiesce in what I wanted. I know that I am only a bit of a two-by-four and that my pressure is not very much.


An hon. Member:: A splinter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, no; the hon. member's pressure is very high.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: Let us remember this, however. If there is enough pressure coming from a lot of little people, it makes a lot of weight just the same. We are delighted that the Prime Minister had a pleasant trip and has returned; and from the way the debate has now gone, I am quite certain that Red China is not going to be recognized, as far as Canada is concerned, in the United Nations.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Ernest George Hansell: I do not know what he said if he did not say that.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to your attention a few remarks that have been made by another distinguished gentleman who has travelled around the world on a similar mission to that on which the Prime Minister travelled. I refer to Senator Knowland, who is the leader of the United States senate. I want to give to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house, one or two reflections by Senator Knowland given in an interview with the editors of U.S. News and World Report, a magazine that is indisputably one of the most authentic ones published in the United States today. This quotation is from a series of questions and answers in an article entitled "Nehru Doesn't Speak for Asia". The article is highly enlightening. I am going to read only a few extracts from it. Senator Knowland was asked this question:
Q. Do they criticize us-
Meaning, of course, the United States.
-for not wanting to admit Red China?
That is to the United Nations. This is Senator Knowland's answer:
A. Yes, I think it's been pretty clear from both the public statements and the private manoeuvrings of India's representatives in the United Nations that they think our policy is wrong, and they have a belief apparently that, by placating the Chinese communists, by appeasing them in this regard, they may then not press for further conquest in Asia. I think this is a mistaken policy because I think that the more weakness that is shown in the face of the communists, either Soviet or Chinese, the greater the demands will become upon ourselves and the rest of the free world.
Then there is this question:
Do you think you made any impression upon Nehru with your views?

For the sake of brevity I am going to abridge the answer, but it does not destroy its context. The answer is:
... I do think one great mistake that we of the free world would make in regard to India would be to consider that Nehru is the spokesman for. all of Asia. I do not believe that this is a correct analysis of the existing situation in the Far past. Certainly Nehru does not speak for the Republic of Korea. He does not speak for Japan. He does not speak for free China on Formosa. He doesn't speak for Thailand, Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia and he certainly doesn't speak for Pakistan. All of those countries I visited . . . i don't believe that Nehru speaks for the Philippines either . . . Most of the leaders in Asia, those whose nations are outside the iron curtain and who are determined to remain outside the iron curtain, feel that the Nehru policy would ultimately be fatal to free institutions in Asia and would ultimately lead to all of Asia's going behind the iron curtain ... I don't believe that it's realistic for Nehru to think that, if all the rest of the world went behind the iron curtain, the ruthless men in the Kremlin would respect his desire to be an isolated island of freedom in an otherwise totalitarian world.
In answer to another question he said:
But he apparently, for some reason, believes that this neutralist policy that he follows may ultimately cause the Chinese communists, and presumably the Soviet union, to postpone, if jiot completely eliminate, thoughts of further aggression. There are very few people in Asia who have had firsthand contact with the communists who believe that this is anything but a naive outlook when you're dealing with the Kremlin or with Peiping.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have something from a man of some considerable repute who travelled the world to talk with the leaders of some of the nations of the world as to the part that we of the West should play with respect to our attitude towards China and the Far East. There are many who are attempting to say that the Mao Tse-tung government will play its own role without any dictatorship from the Soviet. Here is a question he was asked on that point:
What do they think in the Far East about Red China's leader, Mao Tse-tung, becoming another Tito?
This is the answer:
No, they don't think that that is likely. The general feeling out there is that Mao Tse-tung i.s a willing and enthusiastic ally of the men of the Kremlin. He may be a junior partner, but they feel that his policies and those of communist China are going to parallel, in the foreseeable future at least, the policies of the Soviet union.
With respect to collective security on which the Secretary of States for External Affairs touched the other day, I should like to read what Senator Knowland's reply was because to my mind it is extremely revealing. I would not read these questions and answers if it were not for the status and position of Senator Knowland who, as we all know, is

the leader of the Senate in the United States. With respect to collective security the question is:
Is there anything positive that might lead to peace in the Pacific area?
His answer is:
Yes, I think that as of today there is a very real opportunity to rally the free people of Asia who-all taken together, including India-still amount to several hundreds of millions of people. . . . But if we lose this opportunity of bringing about a real collective security in Asia, and the communists are able to start picking off these nations one by one, then I believe that we may have to face up to what Lenin predicted a couple of decades ago, when he said that the road to Paris was through Peiping.
The next question has to do with the value of non-aggression pacts, and this is his reply:
If these countries are left behind the iron curtain, what it means when a non-aggression pact is entered into is that it is going to be interpreted, by those people who desire to be free in those countries, that we have permanently abandoned them to Soviet tyranny.
I come now to the recognition of China, and in spite of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has assured us that he is not going to acquiesce in any way in the recognition of Red China in the United Nations, I do wish to put my own personal thoughts on the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was not what I said. I would not like the hon. member to misinterpret what I said. I said I would not acquiesce to any pressure at Geneva towards recognition at that time.


Ernest George Hansell: Well-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That was the question you asked me.


Ernest George Hansell: That might put a little different complexion on my understanding of the minister's answer. We will make a note of that and take into consideration very carefully the words that he has spoken which impress me once again that I must put on the record what I feel with respect to the matter of the recognition of Red China at the United Nations. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put on the record-I will read it if you desire but I know that time is short in tonight's debate-a resolution passed by the Alberta provincial Social Credit convention held in Calgary, Alberta, last November. It is a short resolution consisting of a typewritten page and it sets out their attitude towards recognition of Red China. If I may do that-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Read it.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to have inserted in Hansard this resolution of the Alberta Social Credit convention?
External Affairs


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ernest George Hansell: Very well; I thought it would save a little time but I am quite happy to read it. It reads as follows:
Whereas in our opinion one of the greatest menaces to the peace of the world and the freedom of its people is international communism; and Whereas we believe that recognition of the Red Chinese government by Canada and/or admission of Red China to the U.N. would give an impetus to the communist drive in Asia which would not again be stopped until all of Asia is behind the iron curtain and the hopes of all the people of Asia for a free and democratic life crushed to earth; and
Whereas by recognizing Red China we would in effect be condoning the enslavement of millions of people in Asia by their communist masters and discouraging any attempt by the people to free themselves by counteraction; and Whereas North America, which is now menaced by the communist forces of the world, would then be in extreme danger because the tremendous resources and manpower of Asia would then be mobilized on the side of communism, and Whereas the Red Chinese in the Korean war, in which they were clearly the aggressors, were guilty of vicious and inhuman atrocities including the torture and murder of helpless prisoners of war: Therefore be it resolved that we express our unalterable opposition to the recognition by Canada of the Red Chinese government and/or its admission to the U.N.; and
Be it further resolved that the secretary be instructed to forward a copy of this resolution to the Honourable Mr. L. B. Pearson, minister of external affairs.
Now, that was a resolution passed by the provincial Social Credit convention in Alberta. May I now come to what the people of the Far East believe with respect to the recognition of China? In that respect Senator Knowland's interviews with leaders of many nations in the world-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it seems to me he has quoted the report of the interview given by Senator Knowland at length. If that is published in book or pamphlet form, perhaps he could give the reference and hon. members could secure the book and read it themselves. I say that because, as hon. members know, I stopped the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) the other day in the debate on the motion to go into supply, because in quoting at length extracts from newspapers he was infringing the rule that says an hon. member is supposed to make his own speech and not give the speech of others.
I have had occasion to stop the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), when he was quoting at some length a book having to do with the inquiry being conducted by Senator McCarthy. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) is quite in order when he quotes sufficiently to support the point he advances himself. For the last few minutes I have been listening intently to what

External Affairs
he was saying, and on every point that he advanced he has been quoting from the interview given by Senator Knowland. He left those quotations for one minute to read a resolution adopted by the Alberta Social Credit league. I know that he wants to observe the rules, and for the purpose of preserving order in debate I thought perhaps I should bring this rule to his attention. See Beau-chesne's third edition, citation 264.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am well aware of the rule that one should not quote at great length from any manuscript or any book. I will not do so. It was the last quotation I was going to make, by the way. I only thought it would be interesting perhaps to compare the remarks of the Prime Minister with the observations that were made by a distinguished gentleman from the United States who made a similar trip. I did not think I had quoted too much. However, you evidently think I have so I will not quote any more. What I was going to quote was this:


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ernest George Hansell: I am putting it in my own words. I am not going to read from the text. I could perhaps give members the citation so they can get a copy of the article if they wish. I do not suppose they will. It is the issue of October 30, 1953, of U.S. News and World Report. They can get it down in the reading room, if they wish, and it is very enlightening.
What Senator Knowland tried to point out here in connection with recognition of Red China in the UN is that it would destroy the confidence that the free peoples, or shall I say the peoples who adhere to the principles of freedom in the other parts of the world, have in the United States and in the other nations of the free world that should be battling their battle. That is the point he attempts to make. They would simply give up and say, well, the only thing we can do is to attempt to strike the best bargain we can with our victors, with our dictators. Now, that is about what he concludes. This goes not only for those in the Far East, but it goes for all these subjugated people in the rest of the world. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, there are millions of subjugated people in some of the nations even behind the iron curtain who are still praying and hoping that those of us who are still free will fight their battles in order to eventually free them.
During the debate this afternoon the leader of the official opposition mentioned that we know these enslaved people have not given up the struggle for freedom. Why, then, should we condone the further acts of their

oppressors. They appeal to the world with the cry: liberty-loving people of the world unite in our struggle against tyranny. The time may come when they can arise, but that time will not come if we continue to give, give, give, one concession after another to the Soviet.
For example, despite the persistent efforts on the part of Russia to conquer the rich Ukraine, to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) referred this afternoon, the Ukraine has resisted for almost three hundred years the aggressive and brutal penetration of that country. In spite of genocide, massacre and mass deportation, the Ukraine's stubborn resistance to communism restrained the red march in Europe for twenty bitter years. Our external policy must be such that we will not forsake nor forget them, nor forget Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic countries and the other numerous freedom loving people within the Soviet union and within the world now engulfed by Soviet imperialism.
We in the free world claim to base almost our entire philosophy on the great principles of freedom and justice. We of the Social Credit movement believe in those high principles, and we champion and respect the sovereignty and the freedom of the people of all nations. A little while ago I said I thought it was about time we should call a halt to this matter of granting concessions to the Russians as they gather in conference. I shall ask this question, particularly with respect to recognition of Red China at the UN. What do the communists here in Canada want us to do? Of course, they want us to recognize Red China. What do our C.C.F. friends want us to do? The leader of that party has placed before us the fact he wants recognition of Red China; the recognition and acceptance of Red China into the UN. I sometimes wonder if they can be serious about this matter.
Is membership in the UN really to give Red China another reward for her war of aggression in Korea? That is exactly how it will be interpreted. The UN, so we have been led to believe and were told at its very inception, was to protect the peace of the world. Is it consistent that they should now admit an aggressor? Whatever nation offends against the ideal of peace should not only be refused membership in the UN but any nation that violates the ideal of peace should be expelled from the UN. As far as I am personally concerned, should the United Nations move to admit Red China, then Canada should immediately withdraw from the United Nations. Those are my convictions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: Has my time expired? I was only about half-way through, so perhaps I shall stop now. However, Mr. Speaker, I would say this, that while I have to stop because my time has expired I shall continue my speech on another appropriate occasion.


Mr. L. T. Slick (Trinily-Conceplion):: Mr. Speaker, roughly a month ago I objected to a debate continuing after hours. As this debate is a very important one, and there are many people in Canada who are following it and who would want to hear tonight what the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has to say, I ask permission of the house to withdraw my turn in the debate in his favour, on the condition that his speech will not terminate the debate.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take away the right of the hon. member for Trinity-Conception to speak. But 1 want to make it perfectly clear that if he is not going to speak I shall take my place in the debate now. Therefore if the hon. member does wish to speak, perhaps he had better go ahead.


Leonard T. Stick: As I have not the unanimous consent of the house there is nothing left for me to do but to continue with my speech.
Once again we come to the debate on external affairs when the suggestion is made that the estimates of this department be sent to a committee for examination. Much has been said in the debate, to date. Views have been expressed in strong terms in one way or another. One could take exception to some of the remarks passed, and one could speak strongly about some of the views expressed in the house today.
1 agree to a certain extent with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) when he took exception to the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). But while I do not want to kick a person when he is down, I do want to say a few words about what the hon. member for Nanaimo has said.
He has stated in this House of Commons that he is a socialist; and may I say right now that he is entitled to his views in that regard. That is the working of democracy; and I claim the same right to speak my mind when I wish to do so. When I make that claim for myself I do not take away a similar privilege from others. However, may I say in all sincerity to the hon. member for Nanaimo that some of the views he expressed this afternoon are, in my estimation, rather dangerous.
May I read an extract from the New York Times which deals with socialism and sets
External Affairs	____
out how communism works through socic.^.n to destroy socialism itself. I quote this, a special item to the New York Times dated at The Hague, Netherlands, January 17:
The communist parties of Western Europe are launching a popular-front movement proposing unity of action with the socialists.
The latest in a rapidly developing series of appeals for common action has been launched here by Paul de Groot, general secretary of the Netherlands communist party. At the close of a meeting of party leaders, he called for "a broad basis for a new government, the unity of action of socialists and communists, as the nucleus for national co-operation with all others prepared for it".
Reporting his speech, the party newspaper De WaarheicL (The Truth) carried the banner headline: "Unity of Action of Socialists and Communists!"
The communist call here is anything but an isolated measure. In France, Italy and Belgium the communist parties are making similar appeals -recalling the fact that between the two world wars and immediately after the second one the communists were taken into the governments of three western European nations.
The communists made an unsuccessful attempt to promote a coalition with the socialists during the drawn-out French presidential elections last month. The candidate both parties supported was Marcel Naegelin, a socialist, who was defeated. In the subsequent voting for a president (Speaker) of the French national assembly, the communists backed the winner, Andre Le Troquer. Some observers in France saw in this achievement the confirmation of a new tactic.
The Paris newspaper Le Monde, which commented, "The communists have returned to and are admitted in the political, parliamentary and electoral game", spoke of the "sketch of a cartel of the Left or a popular front on the political level."
On Thursday the Belgian communist newspaper Le Draveau Rouge (The Red Flag) reported the declaration made by the French communist party as it prepared to support M. Le Troquer: "The communists intend to show-once again-their desire to struggle with all their strength for the triumph of a policy of unity of action with the socialist workers." Le Draveau Rouge suggested that in Italy also there now was a hardening or regrouping of all the popular forces desiring "progress and peace". On Wednesday the Italian communist leader, Palmiro Togliatti, told Premier-designate Amintore Fanfani that all parties willing to share the responsibility of government, including the communist, should be in the pending cabinet.
In the field of foreign policy, and especially on the question of the European army, which would unite the national armies of France, Italy, West Germany and the Benelux countries, the communist appeal apparently will not always fall on deaf ears.
May I suggest in all sincerity, and with every respect for the hon. member, that this policy of the communist party in Europe could very well spread to Canada. And if we have very much more of the ideas expressed in the house this afternoon it may be that the hon. member is playing with fire; and if he does, he will probably get his fingers badly burned.
Now, Mr. Speaker, for many months past we have heard not only from leaders in this country but from those in other countries

External Affairs
that there is a lessening of the tension in the world, and that the danger of a third world war is receding. I have followed those statements by eminent statesmen, whom I do not need to name. I have been rather concerned with that view because, as I see it, the danger is that it may lessen our preparations for defence.
I do not hold those views, myself, because I have never seen any great lessening of the tension. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for whom I have the greatest regard, make certain statements. I am not going to quote his speech, which I do not have before me, but I shall refer to notes which I took at the time, and will take the liberty of reading.
One of the first statements he made was that there was no progress at the Berlin conference; secondly, that there was disappointment and disillusionment over the lack of success in making a peace treaty with Germany, and particularly with Austria. He pointed out that the basic foreign policy of Russia has not changed-and with that statement I agree entirely. He said, further, that the United Nations is not an effective agency for security, and that is why we formed NATO. He said also that, in view of the danger which threatens, local defence is not sufficient. In other words that we must have collective security if we are to survive. He said that collective action is needed on instant retaliation.
May I comment on that last note which I took. Much has been said before by way of criticism of Mr. Dulles, Secretary of State for the United States, when he announced the policy of instant retaliation. As on a great many other occasions in the history of this cold war in which we are engaged, the people in this and in other countries took counsel of their fears and wanted to know from Mr. Dulles what he meant by his statement.
They wanted to know from Mr. Dulles what he meant by it. Anybody who knows the United States and the foreign policy of the United States knows this. It has no aggressive intentions against anybody. When he made that statement he implied, if he did not specify it at the time, that instant retaliation meant only if we were suddenly attacked. With that statement of Mr. Dulles I agree. All military experts here and abroad will tell you that if we go into a third world war we are not going to have a declaration of war; that it will come suddenly and possibly overnight. If we are going to call the United Nations into session to decide whether we will hit back and whether we are going to consult the United States and whether they

are going to consult us, we may lose the war overnight. We have to be reasonable about this and use our common sense.
If the U.S.S.R. strikes at us suddenly, through the air, are we going to wait to know what Washington is going to do, or are we going to tie their hands by waiting and wasting precious time so that we shall be handicapped to hit back? Because the expert military opinion today is that whoever gets in the first blow, and the first heavy blow, has a very good, chance of winning the war on that basis. I am with Mr. Dulles. If we are suddenly attacked, arrangements should be made so that the United States' hands are not tied and so that the strategic air force of the United States can hit back at once without any waste of time; otherwise time will play into the hands of Russia and not on our side.
It has been stated in this house on more than one occasion that the battle in which we are participating today is a battle for the minds of men and women. That is true. I subscribe to that statement and I have used it myself. If we are in a battle for the minds of men what are we going to do about it? How are we going to counteract it? It is recognized by everybody here that you are not going to defeat communism by war, and that war will not change the minds of men. If that is true, then we must look to some other way to change the minds of men. Furthermore, it has been said in this house on many occasions that economics cause poverty and distress; in other words, economics play a large part in the thinking of those who favour communism. To some extent that is true but not absolutely so.
It has also been said in this house on many occasions that we shall lose Asia because of the poverty and distress in the Asian countries. I said here a year or two ago that the difference between the east and the west, the Orient and the Occident, is not economic, absolutely. It is racial and it is time we understand what this racial difference means.
They have had poverty in southeast Asia for many years. Communist countries have put forth their views as to how they should better their conditions of life. In one country it is to share land; in another country it is to appeal to nationalism. What are we doing to counteract it? Well, we have the Colombo plan. Through the Colombo plan we are demonstrating our good will toward those countries in southeast Asia. We are showing them that we are desirous of helping them economically. That plan is working. We are all glad to hear the reports on the progress that has taken place during the last

three or four years. Some hon. members say that we are not doing enough in that regard.
The Colombo plan is not going to change the minds of people in southeast Asia regarding communism. We must offer them something more than that. May I say, Mr. Speaker, that from my knowledge of the East -and I spent two years there, particularly in India, many years ago-the Orient does not change quickly. What was true when I was there is true today. The people of the Orient are waiting for a message of hope, as are the people in other parts of this world. Our diplomacy has failed to give them that message. What they need is something to counteract the subtle propaganda of communism which offers them hope in another form.
I stated here two years ago that the foreign policy of Canada should be peace through strength. That policy has been followed, but there have been some degrees of weakness. I do not think it is sufficient today to change the minds of men. I advocate now a policy of power through love, through strength. These may be only words. In other words, the power of love through strength is what the people need, and is the message which we must convey to the people of the Orient and to our own people. Nobody can tell me that men like Klaus Fuchs, Burgess and MacLean embraced communism because they were suffering from poverty. I think that is a sufficient explanation to show that poverty is not the full answer to communism.
May I demonstrate what I mean by what I said? If you followed the elections in Italy of some two or three years ago you will know we were all betting that that country would go communist. What happened? The people of Italy were swaying between two minds, and it was decided by the people there that they required a message. A clergyman preached love to those people. He explained what it meant. He explained the power behind it. It was that message of love preached to the people on the streets of Milan, Naples and the other large cities, which convinced a sufficient number of Italians so that Italy has been saved so far from communist domination.
I wish now to refer to the Prime Minister's trip to the Orient. If I can analyse and sum up his trip and the statements which he has made since he came back I would do it in this way. The Prime Minister found out on this trip that it does not matter what colour a man is; whether he is white, black, yellow
External Affairs
or brown, he is a human being and he has the same feelings that you and I have. Kipling summed it up very well in a poem when he described the feelings of the wife of the common soldier and the wife of a colonel in these words:
For the Colonel's Lady an' Judy O'Grady Are sisters under their skins!	.
The Prime Minister went to India and interviewed Mr. Nehru; he went to Pakistan and interviewed Mohammed Ali. He carried a message to them from this country and from the whole western hemisphere. It was received gladly. It was a message of good will and a message of love, if you want to use that term. But he did it through strength, because in India he was put on the spot when he was asked about the United States offering military aid to Pakistan, which was a very unpopular move so far as India was concerned.
What did the Prime Minister do? He faced up to the situation, and he told them of the friendship between Canada and the United States, and he was convinced that in giving military aid to Pakistan the United States had no thought that it would be directed at India. That was not the answer that the Indians wanted to hear; that was not what they expected. But they respect honesty and they respected the good will and the courage displayed by the Prime Minister in making that statement.
It has been said by the leader of the C.C.F. party here, who has on two occasions rather complained about the military aid of the United States to Pakistan, that there is uneasiness in India regarding it. Let us examine what that means. Will anyone suggest that Pakistan is going to declare war on India? Will anyone suggest that 70 million people are going to take on 360 million people? Pakistan has not the capacity to wage war on a large scale, nor indeed has India. In my opinion such an argument is utter nonsense and certainly not logical. When people make that statement in this house they do not complete the statement because President Eisenhower also offered military aid to India which India, being a proud nation, politely refused. What happened shortly after that? When news of the proposed Geneva conference was released the Prime Minister was asked what he thought. When Mr. Nehru called for a cease-fire in Indo-China he was also asked his opinion of that. Immediately and without any hesitation he backed up Mr. Nehru in his plea.
There you have a demonstration, if you like, of love through strength and the power of love through strength. In one case he

External Affairs
spoke from strength when it was unpopular, and in another instance he spoke from strength when it was popular.
The Prime Minister sowed a seed in India and those of us who know India will realize that he sowed that seed in India through strength and not through weakness and we will all do well to follow up his example- nourish that seed and bring it to its full fruit.
The seed is sown; and what we say in this house and how we back up the Prime Minister's example will determine whether the people of the Orient accept that message in the spirit in which it was offered. It is the message which they were waiting for because it is a message of hope and not one of fear. Because of that it will succeed. It will convince the great majority of the people of the Orient today who are sitting on the fence that they should reject the embrace of communism and accept the free and democratic way of life.
What the world requires today is this message of hope. You can never get peace or keep peace through fear. We are spending $2,000 million on defence because we have to, and because it is necessary, but it is not the solution to the problem of whether we are going to have peace or war. It may deter nations against waging war but it will not prevent war.
I was interested in an article I read today in the Globe and Mail written by Drew Middleton of the New York Times service and datelined London, March 25. The article states:
The terrifying hydrogen weapon may prove a deterrent to war because of its terrible destructiveness, Foreign Secretary Eden said tonight.
This hope was offered the deeply concerned people of Britain by their foreign secretary toward the close of a Conservative party television program in which Eden spoke for the government.
If this means anything at all it means that our only hope for peace is through fear. But fear never brought peace to the world yet. We are living in fear and trembling today of what is going to happen tomorrow, the next day, or six months hence, and that fear is universal. But if we are to convince the people of the outside world as well as ourselves and destroy this fear, and if we wish to have a permanent peace, then we have to substitute something for that fear. We must substitute hope for fear and we have got to give the people of Canada and of the outside world a message of hope.
The only message of hope that I can suggest is that we urge the breaking down of all racial and religious barriers both in this country and abroad, and that we spread the good news of the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. We should not only

spread that message but live up to it and if we do that we will give the people of the world not only peace but the only lasting peace in this world, which is the peace of God which passeth all understanding.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words in this debate, mainly about the matter of consultation as referred to at some considerable length by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) in the speech he made yesterday. I use the word in the sense in which it occurs to me in so far as foreign affairs are concerned, where, in the sort of world in which we live today, consultation has two aspects. The first is international-consultation between governments, and particularly between the governments of the western world in the North Atlantic treaty alliance, and secondly, national consultation, by which I mean consultation between the individual government and its parliament or whatever is the legislative body to which it owes responsibility.
I believe it is important for us to have a look at this matter of consultation in both these aspects, but I shall start with the second aspect which relates to consultation between our own government and this parliament to which it is responsible. Here we should have a look first at the extent to which this consultation has been going on in connection with the Geneva conference to be held on April 26, that is the extent to which we in this parliament are to be consulted and informed by the government about that conference.
As I listened to the debate it seemed to me that we are concerned here, and indeed all members of parliament are greatly concerned, with what the Canadian delegation may do at that conference in Geneva. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) has expressed our reasons for this concern. Those reasons are based on statements made from time to time by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as well as by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent), which gave rise to some feeling of concern that our delegation to Geneva by some conceivable stretch of the imagination might be prepared to enter into some compromise or make some unfortunate deal with communist Russia and with Red China which could only redound to the disadvantage of the western world. We want to know what stand our delegates are going to take. What is going to be their bargaining position?
It is true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the course of this debate yesterday dealt with the objectives of the Canadian delegation in what he himself called

very general terms. I would like to read from his speech as reported at page 3326 of Hansard:
The United Nations' resolution on this subject reads-at least the important sentence of it-that the objectives we are to seek are:
And here he quoted the resolution:
Achievement by peaceful means of a unified, independent and democratic Korea under a representative form of government and the full restoration of international peace and security in the area.
The minister went on to say:
These are the goals of the Canadian delegation to the conference.
And a little later on:
I can see no obstacle that could not be overcome in the way of the realization of that resolution if there is good faith and good will on both sides;
The minister went on to say that the "if" with respect to the communist delegation was a pretty large "if".
I wonder whether there is justification even for the hope which the minister expressed, and the wonder which I have on that score makes me concerned lest our delegation is prepared to make the sort of concession which we on this side feel would be highly improper for the Canadian delegation to make.
That is why we want to be taken into the confidence of the minister and of the government. We want a measure of consultation, a word which the minister himself stressed to such great extent yesterday. We want some consultation between the government and parliament as to what are going to be the terms of reference of that delegation. The minister said that our objectives are to achieve, by peaceful means, a unified, independent and democratic Korea.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me fair to say that our experience has proven that it is highly unlikely that you are going to get immediate agreement with Russia and with China on the restoring or the creation of a democratic government anywhere in the world, at least anywhere where the communist countries have any influence to prevent it. That is why I wonder whether there is even reason for the hope which the minister has expressed.
I think it would be an attitude of blind folly to say that we really hope we are going to get agreement with Russia and China on a democratic government, as we understand it, with regard to Korea unless we are going to make concessions which so far have not been indicated to us here. That is why it is proper and, in fact, essential that the minister should not content himself with the vague generality-"Oh, we are going over there to try to promote peace and democracy."
External Affairs
Of course we are going over there to try to promote peace and a unified Korea. That is what we fought for. But how do we propose to try to get it? What bargain are we going to make? What bargain, if any, are we prepared to enter into in order to achieve it, or are we prepared to enter into any bargain? I think parliament is entitled to be consulted by the government and to be informed by the government on this point.
When he replies I can imagine the minister's saying, "Surely my hon. friend will hardly expect the Canadian delegation to show its hand and to reveal in advance to the Russian and Chinese delegates just what bargaining points we have before we get there". I suppose there may be some faint shadow of justification for that position, Mr. Speaker; but if we are not going to be told in detail what the Canadian delegation will be told, what bargaining attitudes they will take, I think we are at least entitled to insist that we should be told what they will not do and the points beyond which they will not go in the making of concessions, or in the encouragement of our allies in the making of concessions, to Russia and to communist China. It seems to me that it might indeed strengthen the position of the whole free world before the conference if there were to be a measure of consultation between the free western nations that have been fighting in Korea and an agreement as to those points beyond which they will not go in these negotiations so that the Russians and the Chinese would understand clearly before they go there those concessions which they need not even hope to be able to force from us.
Not only should that measure of consultation take place between those governments but it is my opinion that this parliament is entitled to be consulted and to be informed by the minister and by the government as to what that position is, what it is we have agreed that we will not do, or that we will not give up, at the Geneva conference. If we are to continue this so-called, and as I sometimes think inaptly described, bilateral foreign policy, I am convinced that we on this side of the house cannot for much longer be expected to support only what we are told about after it has been accomplished. If we are expected to support Canada's foreign policy-even in broad general terms-we should not be asked afterwards to assume the responsibility for it in the technical sense of that word, but should be consulted so that we will know in advance the direction or trend of government policies in these matters so that we can express our opinion on them, in order that if we are going to be asked

External Affairs
to support a deal after it has been made, we may at least have some opportunity of indicating the direction or the general lines along which we think negotiations should be conducted.
It is all very well for the secretary of state to use words to imply, as he did yesterday, that the necessity of consultation extends only between governments. As reported at page 3331 of Hansard, he said:
I am sure hon. members will agree with me when I say that we want to be let in at the take-off so that we can do our part to help avoid a crash landing.
Mr. Speaker, if that statement applies as between governments which are assuming a joint responsibility in the conduct of international affairs, how much more aptly it applies as between the government and parliament when the government is asking parliament to support it in the foreign policy that it arrives at. I can only hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will inform parliament as to the bargaining position in general which is going to be taken by the Canadian delegation so that it will be a case of letting us be in at the take-off so that we can do our part to help avoid a crash landing rather than not being in at the take-off but having to strap ourselves in to minimize, so far as possible, the effects of that crash landing which might otherwise occur.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does he feel that, as a result of this consultation, the opposition will be willing to accept responsibility for the policy of the government?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, of course I could not answer that question until the minister takes us into his confidence and lets us know in what direction the Canadian foreign policy is tending-


George Alexander Drew: And gets away from the ambiguity.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -so we will know whether we should approve it. He cannot very well expect us to give him a blank cheque such as that for which he is asking in those words.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not asking for anything.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, may I move the adjournment of the debate?


Mr. Low:: Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) has moved the adjournment of the debate, perhaps you will allow me to say just a word

or two on this motion. It is ten o'clock. I realize that fact. I do not know a thing about what the list of speakers may be; that is, I do not know how many hon. members yet want to speak in this debate. However, it appears to me to be desirable that we hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) as soon as we can. Consequently I am going to make to you, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that we continue to sit and that we give the minister a chance to speak.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Solon Earl Low: I realize that it will take unanimous consent of the members of the house, first, to sit beyond ten o'clock and, second, to allow the minister to speak before the debate has concluded, so that other members who wish to get into the debate will have a chance to speak at a later time. I realize all that. Nevertheless I am suggesting that on both counts I am prepared to give that consent on behalf of my colleagues.
I also want to say this. To me it hardly seems fair that, on January 29, when we had our last debate on external affairs, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not have a chance to reply. It may be that matters will work out that way this time if he does not have a chance to speak tonight. I am therefore asking my colleagues in the House of Commons to give that consent on both counts so that we can hear the minister in reply.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there will be any lack of desire on the part of any hon. member here to accord such facilities as might be required to deal adequately with this subject. However, there can be no blame attached to any hon. member in the house for the inability of the minister to speak on the earlier occasion or on this occasion, except to the government. This can go on next Monday in an orderly debate in the proper way as it could have gone on on the earlier occasion. As it stands at the moment I submit that this debate should proceed in an orderly way, and I would hope that it will proceed on Monday.


Mr. Pickersgill:: I rise on a point of order not related to the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition at all. The hon. member for Kamloops resumed his seat, having completed his speech-


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I complete my point of order without being interrupted?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I cannot listen to two hon. members at the same time. I think I should continue to listen to the Secretary of State.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As I was saying when I was interrupted, the hon. member for Kamloops resumed his seat, having completed his speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: He was then asked a question by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and he rose to reply. He had already completed his speech and I should not think he would then have the opportunity to make a second speech.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps I could
explain to the Secretary of State-


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is new around here.


Mr. Speaker:: -that when the hon. member for Kamloops resumed his seat it was because it was ten o'clock, and he moved the adjournment of the debate.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh yes, he did. Just as I was about to put that motion the hon. member for Peace River rose and said that he was speaking to the motion of the hon. member for Kamloops to adjourn the debate. He made a suggestion concerning the business of the house, the routine as to this debate, and it had to do with giving the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by unanimous consent, a chance to reply now. With that the Leader of the Opposition indicated that he could not agree. Since there is not unanimous consent, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs wish to say a word on the suggestion that was made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: With respect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Peace River, I should like to say a word to the effect that some very important questions have been asked of the government today and they should have been answered today if that had been possible. I am very sorry that that has not been possible.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Fulton, seconded by-


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, so that there will be no misunderstanding, I am not absolutely clear in my recollection of this, but I do not think it will
Business of the House be found in Hansard that I said "I move the adjournment of the debate" before the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked me his question. My recollection of the sequence is that as I closed and was about to move the adjournment, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, "May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?" I said "yes" and resumed my seat to give him that opportunity. After the Secretary of State for External Affairs had completed his question I rose, replied, and then said "I accordingly move the adjournment of the debate". It is a pity that the Secretary of State does not listen more closely before he raises these puerile points of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I stand corrected. In explaining the sequence I forgot the incident of the question having been asked and answered and then the motion to adjourn the debate being moved. May I put the motion now?
On motion of Mr. Fulton the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: Mr. Speaker, it has been agreed that on Monday we will take a motion to go into supply by the Minister of Finance which will not be opposed on the understanding that we do not enter any new departments. The procedure then will be that the Minister of Finance will ask for interim supply and when that has been granted we will take up the supplementary estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister in a position to give us information as to the business for any further days next week, as he has sometimes done so helpfully, so that we might have a general view of the week?


Walter Edward Harris: In this particular instance I have no way of judging how long my hon. friends may take on the supplementary estimates. If I had I would be glad to forecast the rest of the week.


Mr. Green:: If the supplementary estimates go through before ten o'clock what business will be taken up then?


Walter Edward Harris: If the supplementary estimates are completed before ten o'clock on Monday we will go on with this debate.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 29, 1954