1955-04-21

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table the formal reply of the United States state department to our representations of March 8 concerning proposals that imports of oil from Canada and other sources should be restricted by legislation or by voluntary action. In view of the fact that our note was included in Hansard perhaps I should read this reply so that it could also appear there.
The reply is:
Reference is made to the Canadian embassy's aide-memoire of March 8,	1955, in which the
embassy set forth in some detail the views of the Canadian government with respect to certain legislation being considered in the United States which has the purpose of limiting the importation of petroleum.
The Department of State appreciates receiving this clear and comprehensive exposition of the Canadian viewpoint. The problems discussed in the aide-memoire are receiving very careful study and the security aspects, as well as the economic considerations, of trade in petroleum and petroleum products between the United States and Canada are being examined.
The Canadian government may rest assured that its views will be given the fullest and most sympathetic possible consideration. As the Canadian embassy is no doubt aware, the executive branch of the United States government has indicated to the congress that it is opposed to the amendment to H.R. 1 proposed by a number of senators which would have the effect of placing legislative limits on the importation of petroleum.
I appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and the house will appreciate that this reply is not very precise. This is not, I think, particularly surprising since the issues involved are currently being discussed actively both within the United States administration and in congress. The full significance of this brief communication from the state department can only, therefore, be determined after the outcome of these various discussions is known, and it is that outcome rather than this particular note which is important.
In the meantime, as I informed the house on Tuesday last, we have been assured by the state department orally that every effort is being made to give recognition to the factors which the Canadian government emphasized
in its earlier representations. While we cannot be certain about the final result I am hopeful that in the light of their own interest and of the considerations which we have brought to their notice, the United States government will deal with this question in a manner which will not interfere with the development of the trade in oil between Canada and the United States, which is of such importance to both countries.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members will welcome the information which has been given in regard to this very important subject. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has explained, there is some reservation in regard to the information given, for reasons Which we can all fully understand. I believe, however, it would be appropriate to point out that, having regard to the very close association between our two countries and to the extremely friendly relationship which has been regarded as an example, there are implications in one aspect of this matter which should be borne in mind.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce informed the house of the message which had been sent to the government of the United States at the time it was proposed that there be certain fixed limitations upon the movement of oil across our frontiers. It appears from the message that has gone from the state department to the appropriate committee of congress that every effort is being made by the government of the United States to prevent a rigid pattern of that type taking form. There was, however, one other aspect of this question which has not been dealt with as yet, and which I feel could have consequences which should not be ignored if there were not some satisfactory assurances in regard to it.
It will be recalled that there was a suggestion that, as an alternative to ordinary legislative procedure, there might be a method under which companies organized in the United States and transmitting oil to the United States might be called upon to produce by voluntary action the limitation which otherwise would be imposed by legislative provision.
Having regard to the very large investment of United States funds in Canada, and having

Questions
regard to the desirability of mutual confidence not only from the financial point of view but from every other point of view, I would hope that any attempt to use the power that might be exercised by the fact that the money control was in the United States would be given very careful consideration. It could undoubtedly lead to loss of confidence on the part of investors in the United States in some types of investments here. At the same time it could raise questions in this country as to the freedom of investments which we have always regarded as being vitally important, whether they came from there, from the United Kingdom or from any other country.
I mention this because this subject was regarded as of sufficient importance by the government to be brought forward in considerable detail; and in seeking information it was not only in the hope that any legislative restriction might be prevented but also in the hope that any indirect restriction might be avoided which could interfere with that very friendly relationship in financial affairs which has been so helpful to both countries.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. John Hunter (Parkdale) moved:: That the petition of Westcoast Transmission Company Limited and the petition to incorporate Baudette and Rainy River Municipal Bridge Company, presented respectively on April 5 and April 18, 1955, together with the reports made thereon by the clerk of petitions on April 6 and April 19, 1955, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for such recommendations as may be deemed advisable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Knowles:: 1.	Is the Canadian government giving consideration to taking the initiative in urging the United Nations to make a study as to the extent to which atomic and hydrogen bomb tests can be made without grave danger to the human race, as requested by the federation of American scientists?
2.	If so, when will such action be taken?
3.	If not, what are the reasons for the government's decision?


Mr. Pearson:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	The Canadian government has been in touch with friendly governments who, through the possession of atomic and thermonuclear weapons, have a direct interest in

this matter. Statements made recently by responsible officials of these governments indicate that tests so far have produced a general level of radioactivity which is remote from endangering human life.
Of course these matters should be kept, and are being kept, under constant study as indicated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the house on April 4. In addition to the investigations referred to by the minister at that time, the scientific conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy to be held in Geneva in August will consider a number of problems related to the health and safety aspects of atomic energy, including biological and genetic effects and radiation injury and protection.
The government would be prepared to support any serious studies, which gave promise of increasing our knowledge of the problem. It is the view of the government, however, that it would serve no useful purpose for it to take any special initiative at this time of the kind referred to in the question. The government will continue to consult with friendly governments on this important matter.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND


Mr. Kickham:: What was the total amount paid in each of the counties of Prince Edward Island for the years 1951 to 1954 inclusive, under assistance in construction of vessels of the dragger or long-liner type?


Mr. MacNaughi:: Fiscal	Kings	Queens	Princeyear	county	county	county1951-	52 1952-	53 1953-	54 1954-	55	$15,455.55 32,683.20 16,514.85	$14,300.55	$14,246.10



ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence. Have any pilots of T-33 aircraft which crashed made radio communication which suggested they were in trouble?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. In some of the T-33 crashes the pilots were able to report by radio that they -were encountering difficulty. Whether or not radio communication is possible in such

circumstances depends of course upon distance, communications conditions and the rapidity with which an emergency may develop.
When radio communication is possible accidents are very often prevented because corrective instructions can be given. With respect to the 19 T-33 crashes which occurred in training command during the calendar year 1954, radio reports of difficulty were made in the case of five crashes, and in three of these five crashes there were no fatalities. No radio communication was received in the remaining 14 crashes.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: May I ask
a supplementary question. When pilots radio that they are in trouble are they advised to use the ejector apparatus?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I would presume that the circumstances of the case as given to the tower would determine any advice that might be given. But I would think if there was any likelihood of a crash, most certainly a pilot would be given that instruction. In fact I would not think a pilot under such circumstances would require it.



INQUIRY AS TO TRAINING STAGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the house whether a two-stage or three-stage pilot training program is in effect for air force pilots? I mean by that, do they begin with Harvards and go to T-33's, or is there some elementary stage in the training program?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The present regulations are that they go from Harvards to T-33's and then on to operational planes.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DEVELOPMENT OF GAS TURBINE ENGINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent announcement in the New York press that there is every indication that the final "run until it busts" tests at Dunkirk, New York, on the coal-burning gas turbine were considered successful, would the minister care to state if the experiments and investigations being carried on in Canada indicate that this turbine will materialize for economic use on our railroads?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. George Prudham (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having given notice of his question. The Canadian experiment in the development of a coal-fired gas turbine engine by Professor Mordell at McGill University has been under way for several years under the sponsorship of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.
About a year ago the machine was started on a test run. After about 50 hours' run certain weaknesses developed. After consultation among all the scientists connected with the project, it was decided that certain modifications were desirable before the tests were carried any further. The machine is presently shut down pending modifications, and it is expected that it will be back in operation very soon. When a test run of several hundred hours has been completed the results will then be made available to private industry. Any application of the machine to locomotive or other uses will then be up to private industry. We have reason to believe that the Mordell experiment is equal to or in advance of similar experiments in other countries.


Mr. Nowlan:: May I ask a supplementary question arising out of that asked by the hon. member from Halifax. Would the minister advise us when he would anticipate that this test run of several hundred hours to which he referred might be undertaken?


George Prudham: As soon as modifications have been made in the heat exchanger of the machine, I believe. We have every hope that the test run will be completed successfully.


George Clyde Nowlan: When?


George Prudham: It will be continued as soon as modifications have been made.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask the Minister of National Revenue if the government is prepared to have referred to the special committee on radio broadcasting and television those items in the estimates which pertain to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation? I am thinking of items such as Nos. 56 and 57. This request was made at an earlier stage, and follows the practice that has been observed in some other years.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES

[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter on which I am not in a position to give a definite answer at the present time. The house is well aware that estimates of some departments have been referred to the special committee on estimates, but the estimates for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation are not included. Therefore I think it would take special action by the house to refer the estimates of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to the radio committee. However, I shall take the matter up with my colleagues, and we will give an answer at a later date.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulfon (Kamloops):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Will the evidence taken by the commission investigating loss-leader practices, the report of which was tabled yesterday, be made available? I know the evidence in whole would be very bulky. I am not necessarily asking that it be printed in Hansard, or anything of that sort, but it would be of interest to hon. members and others if the evidence itself could be accessible. What arrangements in that regard can be made?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take up with the members of the commission the means by which that result might be obtained.



POLIOMYELITIS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Is the minister in a position to assure the house that no sales tax will be levied on the Salk polio vaccine which will be available through the commercial drug houses?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter which is under direct consideration at the present time, and when a decision is reached I shall let the house know.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF CANADA COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? Is the Prime Minister aware of the press report that the government, allegedly for constitutional reasons, has dropped the idea of setting up the Canada Council? Is this true, or is it still the intent tion of the government to set up this body?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: It is still the intention of the government to recommend to parliament that this body be provided for.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Canada any observer or observers at the Asian-African conference being held in Indonesia at the present time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, we have no observers at the conference; but we have a diplomatic mission in Indonesia, and we get reports of the conference through our mission.




[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, April 6, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That items numbered 92 to 111 inclusive of the main estimates, 1955-56, 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. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, on April 19, as recorded at page 2971 of Hansard, I said I proposed to outline in some detail how Stalin of Russia and his friends conquered China, indicating the part played by Roosevelt at Yalta in destroying Chiang Kai-shek. On April 6 I made a few remarks indicating that same part played by Roosevelt.
On each of those dates, I had hoped to answer the statement made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) on March 24, 1955, concerning Chiang Kai-shek.

On April 6 I promised to read an excerpt from an editorial in a great United States newspaper, commenting upon the recent publication of the Yalta papers. The hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden) asked the name of the paper, and I promised to give it to him. I now give him the name of the paper and read the extract. The name of the paper is the New York Daily News, and it is dated March 18, 1955. It has a daily circulation of 2,050,000, which indicates that it is no third-rate or tenth-rate newspaper. The name of the editorial from which the extract comes is "The Sorry Record of Yalta." These are the words I culled from the editorial:
So Roosevelt sold Chiang Kai-shek down the river, with a lame excuse that he felt sure Chiang would agree afterward to virtually giving Russia Manchuria and the warm water port of Dairen. Thus, Roosevelt set the stage for the red conquest of China, the Korean war, and the present threat of communist conquest of all Asia.
And, I might add, of all the world.
I think that will indicate quite clearly that I am not alone in the position I take. The particular statement of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar was this, as reported at page 2356 of Hansard:
How many Canadians or Americans understand why the Chinese people drove Chiang Kai-shek out of China?
Later on, as I recall, there were more remarks that indicated the reason he was driven out by the Chinese was that Chiang was "corrupt". In the same speech the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar made three other statements which I shall not take time to read to the house at the present time, but the opening and closing words of which I shall give so they can be found readily by those who are interested. The first is on page 2358 of Hansard as follows:	"It is about
time ... continental United States." The next is: "He suggested... the United Nations." The next is: "I have told... peace in Asia."
Now, there is diametrical opposition between myself and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar. This is wholly honest, and there is no political concern in the matter. He believes one thing; I believe another.
I think the issue between us must be decided by reference to authorities. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is a university graduate, I am sure. I am a university graduate. He has been principal of a high school for a good many years; so have I. Neither of us is accustomed to telling lies, and neither of us is much accustomed to getting things wrong. He has been in public life a good while; so have I. I shall now give the authorities which I propose to use and we
External Affairs
shall see which one of us can base his opinions on the sounder authority. In the time left to us in the present session I fancy the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I shall have some entertainment.
These are the authorities to which I propose to refer. The first one is "China in Stalin's Grand Strategy." I have them all here on my desk so everybody can see them. It was written by Dr. Hu Shih, one-time ambassador to the United States during a period including 1939. The article is reprinted from Foreign Affairs, an American quarterly review, October 1950, copyrighted in 1950 by the Council on Foreign Relations, Incorporated. It was printed in the United States. I shall refer to this document whenever I have reason to refer to it by the words "Hu Shih". This will enable us to avoid repeating the name of this document so many times in Hansard, because with respect of every statement I make I am going to identify the document so there will be no question as to the soundness of what I shall state, or that the authorities to which I shall refer are valid.
The second document is "The Iron Curtain over America" which was written by Dr. John Beaty. It was first printed in 1951, and the eighth printing was in June, 1952. Dr. John Beaty is an M.A. of the University of Virginia, a Ph.D. of Columbia University, and a postgraduate of University of Montpellier in France. In 1941 he was called to active duty in the military intelligence service of the United States war department general staff, where he spent five years. In 1943 he was promoted to lieutenant colonel and made chief of the interview section. From 1946 to 1951 he devoted his time to intensive study preparing to write, and writing, "The Iron Curtain over America". Whenever I refer to this document I have just mentioned I shall do so by using the word "Beaty", which indicates the author.
I may say in addition, concerning this man whose works we are considering, that in 1942 he became a major and chief of the historical section in the intelligence department. He was one of the two editors of the daily secret "G2" reports issued to key persons in high places in the United States administration, giving the world picture as it had been four hours earlier. If a man like that does not get to know his way around the world, and what things are all about, I am sure it will be amazing to every hon. member of this house.
The third document to which I propose to refer is "The China Story" by Freda Utley, who is quoted as an authority by Dr. Beaty. I shall refer to "The China Story", 1951, by the use of the word "Utley". Freda Utley is

External Affairs
speaking from firsthand knowledge. She was in China in 1946-page 60 of Utley. She heard General Wedemeyer in Shanghai-Utley, 61. She spent six years in Russia-Utley, 63 and 108. She was in Chungking and Shanghai in 1946-Utley, page 71. She knew Li Tsung-jen well in Hankow in 1938 and talked with him again in 1946-Utley, page 83. She was correspondent for the London News-Chronicle in the summer and fall of 1938 and was in Hankow-Utley, 103.
She was personally acquainted with some of the leading figures of the minority who corrupted United States foreign policy in the Far East-Utley, 103. She knew Stilwell in Hankow-Utley, 105. She was herself for some time deceived by Chinese communists and revealed it in her book "China at War", 1939-Utley, page 265. She was very frank. She knew John P. Davies-Utley, 115. She spent eight days in Yenan in 1946-Utley, page 140. She knew Edgar Snow who wrote "Red Star over China"-Utley, page 140.
Besides this she draws most profusely and specifically from authorities of unchallengeable authenticity, such as original documents. For example, on page 30 of "The China Story" she says:
No one who takes the trouble to study the records can accept Acheson's statement.
That statement of Utley's pretty well applies to Acheson all the way across the board. She verifies this assertion by reference to Acheson's "Letter of Transmittal", to the white paper on "United States Relations with China, 1949" in her notes on page 263 of her book "The China Story". There seems to be very little doubt about the validity of Freda Utley.
The next document is "The Yalta Betrayal" published in 1953 by Felix Wittmer, a man who quotes original documents and lets them speak for themselves; a man whom Dr. Beaty occasionally cites as an authority, which alone pretty well qualifies him as being. worth listening to. The next is "Freedom's Case Agayrst Dean Acheson" by Felix Wittmer, a reprint from the American Mercury of April 1, 1952. 1 have that here, and I hold it up so all hon. members can see it. I shall refer to the pages of the reprint when I have occasion to refer to the article "Freedom's Case Against Dean Acheson".
In addition to these five documents I shall refer to certain smaller documents such as the McCarran committee hearings and other authentic publications. In every case the evidence to which I shall refer was taken under oath in a committee of one of the most solemn organizations in the world, the United States Senate. Finally there is the book "While You Slept" published in 1951

by John T. Flynn, who quotes abundantly and minutely from original documents.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I have endeavoured to be frank and straightforward with hon. members of the house. This is too serious a time in the world's history to be playing politics with a matter as serious as Formosa or China or Chiang Kai-shek. It is far too serious for any hon. member of this house to get up and make pronouncements on any of these three things without knowing exactly what he is talking about, and without considering everything he says. It is true that there will be honest disagreement, and I am going to explain that in a minute. I have done my utmost to play square with the house and the country and I welcome honest criticism, but I hope there will be no silly, superficial political criticism, because this is too serious a time for politics. I can play politics if I want to, but I prefer not to do it. We are too much under the shadow of disaster for anything of that sort.
Let me assure my C.C.F. friends that there is nothing political in my position today, as I said in my opening remarks, nor in anything I say. We are living in exceedingly dangerous days when the Christian religion, in fact all religion based upon a belief in God, is in extreme peril. Back in June, 1945, there was published in the Reader's Digest for June an article under the caption "The Fate of the World is at Stake in China". In referring to that article Freda Utley says that only a very few publications in the United States dared to print an article with a heading like that. In other words there was already in the United States a censorship which rendered it next to impossible for any newspaper to publish the truth about China. That serves to show how desperate is the condition we have fallen into up to the present time. It is true today, truer than it was in 1945, that the fate of the world is at stake in China. I think it can safely be said that it is at stake in Formosa.
I shall ask the minister later on to tell us why he feels so sure about what he has referred to as neutralizing Formosa. I think we shall give him an opportunity some time to explain that to us; but meanwhile under the circumstances, I am inclined to think that neutralizing Formosa is a desperately serious proposal.
Let me ask my C.C.F. friends whether or not they might not have been reading the wrong books or the wrong kind of books and periodicals. In saying that I am not being mean or political. I think everybody realizes that I have been open and aboveboard and

fair up to the present time, and I intend so to continue. I expect those who are in the house to be just exactly that way.
Let me point out some things which astounded me when I learned them within the last few months.
In the United States, "the communist party line, beginning on October 2, 1942, was anti-Chiang Kai-shek". This is verified in "Freedom's Case Against Dean Acheson", as stated on page 9 of the American Mercury reprint-and it is an accurate document. When it is quoted by a man such as Dr. John Beaty, an ordinary person like you and me had better hold his peace until he is sure he knows whereof he speaks.
Again, Lawrence Salisbury in 1943 resigned from the United States state department to become editor of the Institute of Pacific Relations' fortnightly publication, Far Eastern Survey, and in this capacity he inaugurated a virulent anti-Chinese nationalist and proChinese communist campaign paralleling that of the communist Daily Worker, the Nation and the New Republic-Utley, page 150.
I think some people will be astonished to learn that the Nation and the New Republic are communist publications.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are.


John Horne Blackmore: If you are in any doubt about it just look yourself at Utley, page 150. That is how serious the situation is.
Mr. Philip Jessup, as director of the Institute of Pacific Relations, started in 1943 a virulent smear campaign against nationalist China much like the one conducted against Premier William Aberhart of Alberta. I had occasion to tell you about this the night before last. There never grew up in the Dominion of Canada a more straightforward man or a man more honestly interested in reform than Premier Aberhart; yet that man was lied about all over the world and particularly all over the American continent. I suppose that most ladies would have drawn aside their skirts if they knew they were coming into the same room where he was; he was a man fighting the whole power of the synagogue of Satan, whatever that may be. I shall drop the word "synagogue" and say "the hosts of Satan".
The people who are seeking to destroy Christianity and religion, Chou En-lai and all the people who believe in the rulers of Russia, belong to that fellowship, and they do not mean maybe. What they mean is that the Christian religion has to be destroyed, and that they will destroy it as surely as they are allowed to get power. You cannot say that the people who represent that kind of thing
External Affairs
are emanating from Christianity. The people who opposed Aberhart are the same kind of people as those opposing Chiang Kai-shek now. The facts about Jessup appear in Utley, page 152.
May I now review Chiang's history in bare outline since 1912, and in the light of that history call upon men to use their plain common sense? There are men who say that Chiang was corrupt. I would like to see any member of this house undertake the job which Chiang Kai-shek did from 1926 on and avoid corruption in a huge country such as China, with very few trained and able people to help him. He was after all only a military general, not a statesman; not a dictator, just the president of a republic. I know that all sounds strange, but it is true, and the truth does sound strange after communist lies have done with it.


An hon. Member:: What about the Christian Science Monitor?


John Horne Blackmore: I shall deal with the Christian Science Monitor in good time, but I wish to give the general facts. China is an enormous country with many different kinds of people and many different languages. It is a very poor country. It is a primary producing country; it has very few factories, and it has poor communications in every way and poor local organizations. It has 450 million people. The very idea of one man even attempting to govern a mass like that is enough to repel a person. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar has been a school principal. You can imagine what kind of difficulty he would have if he had a school of 450 million pupils and did not have trained teachers to help him but had assistants who knew no more than the children themselves. That is the first thing.
Let us remember that the Manchu dynasty, as a result of the Manchu conquest, had been in power in China for more than 200 years. Thus there were Manchu war lords over the districts in China, much as we had the lords over the feudal districts in Britain, only not nearly as intelligent as the British lords.
Sun Yat-sen in 1911-1912 established the first republic in Asia. Let us remember then that China was a republic and realize that the man in charge of a republic does largely what his assistants want him to do as well as what he wants to do himself. Chiang Kai-shek was made president of the Whampoa military academy. His job was to train military leaders who could help Sun Yat-sen conquer the Manchu war lords.
Sun Yat-sen died in 1925. Chiang Kai-shek as I have said was merely a military

External Affairs
leader; that was all he pretended to be. Being the kind of military leader he was, it took all his time to learn war. He was trained in Moscow and Japan; he got all the training he could get so as to become a successful military leader. He is one of the most skilful military leaders on earth today. He proved that conclusively in an incident about which I shall be telling you in a moment.
In 1925-26 he had to take over the leadership in China though almost entirely without knowledge or experience in political government. He was general of the army, yet he was called upon to take over Sun Yat-sen's responsibilities to govern. He established the national government with the advice of his elders on April 18, 1927. In the very year in which Chiang set up this national republic, Stalin established the Chinese communist party. Stalin established the communist red army also in the same year. Chiang Kai-shek had had to go north in 1926 to conquer most of China, to depose those Manchu war lords or bring them under control. He had singular success in this effort, and did simply marvellous things.
He had been in charge of China for only six years, and during that time he had been faced with most dreadful difficulties when in 1931 the Japanese attacked in Manchuria. It was in the far north, and it was very difficult for him to meet them. He had exceedingly trying difficulties then. He had to show extremely wise statesmanship. The Japanese were anxious to engage him in a full-scale war, when he was in no way prepared for such a war but they were. He had to fight a delaying action to hold them back as far as he could to prevent getting into a full-scale war in which he would have been annihilated.
This he did. He allowed them to take Manchuria and they established the puppet state of Manchukuo. as they called it. He then had a short time of six more years before the Japanese attacked on a full scale in 1937. One pathetic thing about the war that ensued was that the Japanese were plentifully supplied by the British and Americans with all the latest kinds of instruments of war, while Chiang Kai-shek had to fight with very meagre weapons. He was fighting the Japanese in 1937, and he continued to fight Japanese from 1937 to 1945.
Now I ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar if he thinks he could bring in reforms in a country like China and fight at the same time an army of 1,500,000 Japanese, as Chiang had to do, and, at the same time, look after a Russian communist organization in China

and a Russian communist Chinese army. Think of the difficulty in raising the money to equip an army such as Chiang required! This is what Chiang Kai-shek did.
I spoke about 1,500,000 Japanese soldiers. All during the war, from the time we got into it in 1941, he was holding that 1,500,000 Japanese pinned against the east Chinese coast. If they could have gone abroad or could have gone to Australia and New Zealand, I ask hon. members what might have happened to us and what might have happened to the United States. Let us bear that in mind when we remember the absolutely terrible things the United States has done to Chiang.
Over much of this time he fought the communists as well as the Japanese. There was a time during which the communists co-operated with him, but there were times when they turned their armies against him, made a flank attack against him and did him serious harm, and then blamed him for mismanagement. The story is something terrible to read about, but it is all given in Hu Shih's "China in Stalin's Grand Strategy" and Hu Shih cites men who are recognized as world authorities, such as David J. Dallin.
There is no question about the truth of what I am saying. At one time while he was fighting the Japanese Chaing had to leave some of his assistants to rule China and hold the Japanese while he set out on a 6,000 mile march driving the communist army up into the north, destroying 60,000 of its best men and getting things into position so that he had a ghost of a chance to fight the Japanese. How do you suppose he could have instituted reforms during these periods?
Throughout all his rule he struggled against foreign interests. One of the things that caused Sun Yat-sen to rise was the fact that the British had in China their sphere of influence, as a result of which they had managed to get the Chinese to sign agreements which were greatly disadvantageous to the Chinese; and various other nations had similar spheres of influence in China. The result of that imperialistic control was that it was next to impossible to govern China well at all. Throughout the time he was doing what I have been talking about, namely fighting the Russian communist organization, the Russian communist armies and the Japanese armies, he had to be steadily displacing these outside interests so he would have a chance to govern China.
He constantly struggled against poverty, ignorance and vast numbers in China. Just think that matter over. There were 450 million people spread over such a wide area as that of China. At the same time-and it is

a thing which must not be forgotten-he had a paucity of generals and a paucity of administrators. To hear some people talk, and to read some of the nonsense they write, you would imagine that skilful administrators simply sprang up out of the desert and that skilful generals merely rained down out of the sky. Where do you suppose he obtained enough capable men? How do you suppose he could govern a country of 450 million people without skilful administrators? How do you suppose he could hold out in China without skilful military leaders? He had to take what he could get.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred to what happened in Formosa. I suppose Chiang Kai-shek sent the best man he had, but that man was a military leader; he was not supposed to be a governor. He probably made bad mistakes. No doubt he did. But with all the other 450 million to take care of, and the vast hordes of red China coming down against him, how possibly could Chiang Kai-shek personally supervise Formosa to see that everything was done right? Just put yourselves in that position. Just do a little bit of realistic thinking.
He was constantly being stalked by Stalin. According to this document by Hu Shih I have read from, Stalin started back in 1924, and he stalked Chiang Kai-shek constantly for 25 years, because he knew if he got control of China, he would have a chance of controlling the world. Just as Lenin said, so thought Stalin; whoever controls China will control the world.
What was the result of all this effort? Chiang came through to 1945 triumphantly. There will be some who will doubt that, but it is given right here in Hu Shih. Maybe I shall get to the reading of the passage. He came through to 1945 triumphantly.
Even after all the United States and Russia were able to do to destroy him, Chiang Kai-shek retreated to Formosa in 1949 with dignity and with constancy, facing the foe with faith and determination and confidence.
What are the facts about what he left behind him? Some would think he was a victim of a disgraceful rout. Read "The Iron Curtain over America" and you will find that such thinking is entirely erroneous. What did he leave behind? He left behind on the mainland 1,250,000 Chinese soldiers-Beaty, page 146-who were ready to give their lives for Chiang Kai-shek. Do you suppose he accomplished that by being corrupt? According to Major General Claire Chennault he left behind him 150 million ardently loyal people all along the south and west China borders, almost as many people as there were people in the United States-all ready to give their
External Affairs
lives for Chiang Kai-shek. He had with him on Formosa 200 to 250 planes. He had an effective navy. He had 600,000 loyal soldiers -see Beaty, 146

who retreated to Formosa with him. He was so strong and potentially effective that it required the Korean war- and this is a new slant on the Korean war, and it is one that turns one sick, but I am going to put the evidence before you-and the United States seventh fleet thrown in front of him to keep him from regaining China.
I am going to put the evidence before you to show that apparently the Korean war was deliberately engineered by people in the United States in order to enable the United States seventh fleet to be put between Chiang Kai-shek and red China so as to keep Chiang Kai-shek from recapturing China.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, you laugh. But explain away those 1,250,000 soldiers and those 150 million loyal people. Explain those away.


Mr. Nicholson:: How much assistance did he get from the United States?


John Horne Blackmore: I will come to that matter. He obtained very little. You have heard of something said by Dean Acheson to the effect that Chiang received from the United States some $2 billion worth of military aid. In making that statement Dean Acheson is absolutely wrong. It is perfectly established in Utley's "The China Story", chapter 2, that Acheson apparently deliberately misrepresented. I will show it here. Never mind talking foolishly. Get the facts. Then you will talk intelligently. It required the Korean war and the United States seventh fleet to keep Chiang Kai-shek from regaining China. In the face of all this, how can any man with one-tenth of the intelligence and experience of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar permit himself to be deluded into even thinking that Chiang Kai-shek was thrown out of China?


Mr. Coldwell:: It is queer what delusions we get.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right. How could he permit himself to be deluded into thinking that the Chinese people threw Chiang Kai-shek out of China? What would plain common sense tell you in the face of all this? I shall have to take up the matter of what actually caused the trouble at a later time. I have not the time to do so now. But let me recall again that Roosevelt at Yalta on February 11, 1945, gave Russia "pre-eminent interests" in Manchuria and in north China as a result of which unless Chiang Kai-shek could perform miracles Russia would be able

External Affairs
to conquer China. I referred to that matter the other day. Maybe I shall have time to look into it at a later time.
May I now refer to a few instances in Chiang's life-and just a few. I will talk as long as I can and then I shall have to finish this at a later time.
Here is the first instance: In November, 1943, at the Cairo conference as reported in the statement of December 1-and you will find it in "The Yalta Betrayal" at pages 109 and 110-it was declared by Roosevelt that "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the republic of China". That was in 1943. Did Roosevelt not know what he was doing? I do not know why he did the horrible thing he did two years later, but that is what he committed himself to in 1943. The evidence is here in "The Yalta Betrayal" at pages 109 and 110, if hon. members wish to read it for themselves.
Here is the second instance: In February, 1945, at Yalta, Roosevelt agreed to let Russia acquire what was to be in effect a permanent position of power in China by granting Russia -and I am quoting Freda Utley at page 3, although I am not putting her words in quotation marks-
1.	The "lease" of Port Arthur to Russia as a naval base;
2.	The "internationalization" of Dairen with "pre-eminent rights" for the Soviet union in this largest of China's northeastern ports;
3.	The "joint operation" of the Manchurian railways by China and Russia, with the "preeminent interests" of the Soviet union safeguarded.
See "The China Story", page 3.
Hon. members do not need to be told what that meant. It meant that Russia could walk in and take over everything, which she did. Pre-eminent rights! This meant the two, China and Russia, would be working together, with Russia having pre-eminent rights. You might as well harness a lamb and a lion together and expect the lamb to have a fair chance.
In the Yalta agreement in 1945 Roosevelt sowed the wind from which Chiang Kai-shek within five years, beggared by abundant additional United States treachery, was to reap, and be almost wrecked by, the whirlwind; and before which in 1955, only 10 years later, the whole anti-communist world cowers in imminent danger of being utterly devastated by the tornado.
Here is the third incident. In July, 1945, Truman confirmed the Yalta agreement at [Mr. Blackmore.l
Potsdam against the earnest advice of 50 high-ranking United States officers whose report to General Marshall accurately analysed the situation as it affected China, and forecast exactly what would happen. They made it quite clear that we did not need Russia in the war. Japan was already beaten, and to let Russia come into that war would be a calamity of the first magnitude. Yet in the face of all this Truman confirmed these Yalta agreements. See the Russell committee hearings, part IV, June 21, 1951, page 2916.
Here is the fourth incident. In November 1946, as the white paper on China states:
The-Chinese nationalist-government's forces had occupied most of the areas covered by its demands to the Chinese communists in June and during later negotiations and had reached what turned out to be the highest point of its military position after V-J day.
Does this indicate in Chiang a man who is inept, a man who is corrupt, a man who is ineffective? Or does it indicate a man who towers above men in his character and ability? See Utley, page 16. All this in spite of Roosevelt, Truman, and General Marshall! I want to talk about General Marshall and what he did, by and by, and tell the outrageous things he did to Chiang Kai-shek in 1946.
This is the fifth incident. In September, 1947-remember now, after all the bad things that had been done in 1946-General Albert Wedemeyer, in his survey submitted to the United States president, said the-
-Chiang government had large forces still under arms and was in control of all China south of the Yangtze river, much of north China, with some footholds in Manchuria.
This is a quotation from Beaty's "The Iron Curtain over America", page 118. This again in spite of the further abominations committed against Chiang by Marshall and Truman in 1946! I shall elaborate on those at a later time.
Here is the sixth incident: On July 17, 1949, Owen S. Lattimore, in an article in the Sunday Compass entitled "South Korea- Another China", pointed out that for the United States state department in relation to China, "The problem was how to allow them-China-to fall without making it look as if the United States had pushed them." There is no further word necessary.


An hon. Member:: Is that verified?


John Horne Blackmore: Of course it is verified. I cannot verify everything in a minute. I shall verify that before the end of this year, and I think the hon. member will simply feel worse than a mouse.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: I quote this from
"America's Retreat from Victory", page 159.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I am obliged to advise him that his time has expired.


John Horne Blackmore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. A. H. Hollingworth (York Centre):: should like to make some observations about the Far East, Mr. Speaker. I shall simply say of Europe that, although the situation is fraught with danger, it is by no means fraught with disaster. I am not so cheerful about the Far East, however. I believe that most Canadians are alarmed about the inconsistencies and what seems at times the belligerency of United States foreign policy in Asia. I feel that the time has come for some plain speaking.
I believe it was Secretary of State Dulles who said that Canada is no satellite of the United States, and I feel we should make that fact abundantly clear. It is clear that the explosive situation in the Far East results from the clash of interests between the United States and communist China, and also from the chief satellite of the United States in that area, nationalist China. As a fundamental premise we can readily divest ourselves of the pernicious influence of the communist propaganda gramophone theme that the United States is a world aggressor intent upon thrusting the American way of life down the throats of others. One cannot live in Canada and believe that the United States people are imperialists. But one can believe they can be misguided, albeit they are perfectly sincere. This is the nub of my submissions today.
It will be recalled immediately how important the Marshall plan was in the rehabilitation of Europe. This was a magnanimous and generous stroke which I believe mirrored the feelings of individual United States citizens. We all believe in the objective of world peace, but this does not imply that we agree on the means by which it may be achieved. As Milton said, one has the right to think, to utter and to argue according to one's conscience, and it is that opportunity I am availing myself of today.
Toward the end of 1954 most Canadians felt that progress was being made in working out a modus operandi with the communist world. It appeared that President Eisenhower had taken over active command of the United States foreign policy. The majority decision of the joint chiefs of staff to participate in the defence of Dien Bien Phu and in the prospective defence of Quemoy were both vetoed by the President. Some attributed his
External Affairs change of attitude to the visit of Sir Winston Churchill to Washington in June; others thought it was because of his realization of the awful consequences of the H-bomb, and still others thought it was the result of the enthusiastic reception he received on the hustings during the congressional election, when he talked about a world at peace. Whatever the reason, it was gratifying to hear less blustering from the state department, particularly in reference to the Far East, and to hear more emphasis on the constructive working out of a modus vivendi with the communist world. It was widely felt here that the President was firmly exercising his presidential prerogative in foreign affairs and was a better judge than his advisers on the great questions of war and peace, and that he truly reflected the feelings of that great nation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are confused again. We thought Chiang Kai-shek was to be restrained, and now we fear he may be unleashed. Pronouncements from the state department have again become turgid and equivocal. Is the seventh fleet now to defend Quemoy and Matsu, which Sir Anthony Eden recently asserted were indubitably Chinese?
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Quemoy and Matsu. It was both gratifying and reassuring to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs state that any eruption there would not be our war. Mr. Speaker, we have no business at all intervening in a civil war struggle over those islands. Hon. members know that the question of whether or not the United States would fight over those islands rests with the President, and I agree that Mr. Eisenhower is a humble and sincere man dedicated to peace. But the basis upon which he is to make a decision, I understand, is whether or not he believes that the Chinese communists will use Quemoy and Matsu as a springboard for an invasion of Formosa. Therefore at best the President's opinion will be only a guess, and the peace of the world, I submit, is too important to hinge upon the guess of even such a good man as the President.
In February it will be recalled that congress gave the President carte blanche to defend Formosa and "such related positions" as he deemed necessary. Then came the revelation that Britain and Canada would not support such a policy, particularly as this position seemed to involve Quemoy and Matsu. The ground-swell of public opinion in the United States against the ndministration's ambiguous policy slowly grew into a perceptible roar.
In the April 3 edition of the New York Times, Governor Harriman of New York was

External Affairs
quoted as saying that the administration's policy disregarded "the sensibilities of either our Asian or European friends and allies", and then he went on to say, "It has not only been illogical but deadly dangerous to arrogate to ourselves"-meaning the United States-"the sole responsibility for decisions which involve the future of many peoples."
Senator Spessard Holland, a conservative Florida Democrat, issued a statement indicating only public resistance in his state to going to war over Quemoy and Matsu. Mr. James Reston, Washington correspondent of the New York Times, pointed out in the issue of April 3 that to argue that the defence of the offshore islands is necessary to the defence of Formosa is almost like arguing that the loss of Staten island, a ferryboat ride from Manhattan, would jeopardize the defence of Bermuda. He went on to state that this argument is made against the testimony by the joint chiefs of staff, and that they can defend Formosa even if Quemoy and Matsu are taken.
As a result of all these audible rumblings of dissent the administration began discussions with Britain, Canada and other allies on the possibility of a joint guarantee for the defence of Formosa. Conceivably this could be a face-saving substitute for the original demand for a cease-fire as the price for yielding Quemoy and Matsu.
Then Mr. Adlai Stevenson, in an important and significant foreign policy address, urged the administration to consult with its friends and allies, and even the uncommitted Asian states, asking them to join with the United States in an open declaration condemning the use of force in the Korean straits and to agree to stand with the United States in the defence of Formosa. Alternatively he suggested that the United States submit a resolution to the United Nations general assembly to condemn any effort to alter the present status of Formosa by force. It is interesting to note that the day after Mr. Stevenson made the speech, Secretary of State Dulles in effect endorsed Mr. Stevenson's speech, and it would appear that Mr. Stevenson had smoked out a clarification of the administration's position.
I would think that Mr. Stevenson's first proposition woud be unacceptable to the noncommitted Asian states, and indeed to ourselves and to Britain as well.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has repeatedly stated in this house that our foreign policy in the Far East will be in consonance with the principles of the United Nations and with decisions made by that organization in the Far East. But a general assembly resolution would have, I should

think, a good chance of success and, of equal importance, it would remove the terrifying responsibility for this decision from the shoulders of President Eisenhower and turn it over to the United Nations, where it belongs. I would humbly urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as a distinguished world statesman, to use his good offices toward this end, and if need be to take the initiative in bringing this before the United Nations assembly.
May I now consider those countries in the Far East where the yeast of revolution has been most ceaselessly fermenting. Countries such as India, Pakistan and Ceylon have now achieved independent status within the commonwealth. Indonesia, Burma, Indochina and the Philippines have achieved self-determination. Siam alone seems to be wallowing in the past. Japan is rapidly recovering from the ravages of war and defeat. But the key country in Asia is China, which has undergone a successful revolution, and a complete one too.
Briefly the fundamental raison d'etre of the Asian revolution is that it is a struggle for self-determination against the colonialism which reached its peak in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The people of the Far East are impressed more with the positive materialistic achievements of Russian communism than depressed with the ruthless and abhorrent extirpation of the freedom and dignity of the individual. They want food; they want to be treated like human beings. As Mr. Adlai Stevenson put it so succinctly, "They want rice and respect".
As for the Chinese people's government, there seems to be incontrovertible evidence that they are the effective government of over 500 millions of Chinese. At Geneva they were recognized as such, as the de facto government. Most of the important Asian countries as well as the United Kingdom and the Scandinavian governments, among others, recognize the People's Republic of China as the de jure government as well.
In spite of the brusqueness and even rudeness which characterizes their dealings with the west, in spite of their truculence and obstruction, they are governing China, moving into a hiatus created in great part by the misgovernment of Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang so that in effect it was not difficult for the communists to take over.
That Chiang, the successor to the redoubtable Sun Yat-sen, should fritter away the basis of a Chinese democratic state and lose the democratic revolution by misrule is, I submit, one of the tragedies of our times. So I say we should consider recognizing the government of the People's Republic of

China, but make it contingent upon a general settlement in the Far East, particularly concerning the question of Formosa, through the United Nations.
It is simply a matter of facing facts. It is trite to say, but should be reiterated, that recognition does not mean approval. We certainly do not approve of the totalitarian policies of the Soviet union, but we recognize her existence and her government. I believe Mr. Churchill put it most neatly. In stating the difference between recognition and approval he said, "Mr. Speaker, I recognize the member for Ebbw Vale", who is, of course, Mr. Aneurin Bevan, "but I don't like him."
Second, we can never expect China to enter into a modus operandi with the west if we fail to make the fundamental overture of diplomatic recognition. It should never be forgotten that the Chinese revolution was primarily an indigenous one. The men of the long march were certainly not Russian satellites, as Professor Dennis Brogan has said. But our present policy of treating them as pariahs in the human society serves only to throw them more and more tightly into the willing arms of the Russian bear.
This policy I advocate seems to me to be plain common sense. I am not advocating a neutralist policy for this country. I aver unreservedly that our star is firmly placed in the western firmament; but in Asia I am much more willing to listen to Prime Minister Nehru, who is an Asian, a fellow member of our great commonwealth, and a firm democrat, than to the tergiversations of the state department and the bellicose vacuity of the so-called China lobby.
I concur in the reasoning that Formosa should be placed under the aegis of the United Nations for the time being. It is true that in the 1890's Formosa was ceded to China and then subsequently recaptured by the Japanese, but I submit it is only fundamental justice to see how the Formosans feel about it. After all they are not Chinese, nor are they Japanese. It would seem to me that this would be a good spot to apply the principle of self-determination. But by no means let us be drawn into a shooting war over Formosa. I would say that the quickest way for the west to alienate the numberless masses of Asia is to start dropping bombs on China. Of course, if a world war should erupt our position is irrevocable.
Let us, therefore, strive to use our good offices to effect an equitable and just solution in the Far East. Let us make every effort to avoid a world holocaust which in Sean O'-50433-192
External Affairs
Casey's phrase would make us "step over time into eternity". My respectful submission is that the means I have just outlined are essential and imperative to that end.
(Translation):


Mr. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, this morning's newspapers told us that the Chinese communists were engaged in intense military preparations and that the United States had sent their chief of staff and their under secretary of defence to Formosa to inquire into the situation on the spot.
It is quite evident that there remains an imminent danger of war in the China sea and the Chinese question is the most serious of all those facing us at this time.
There seem to be many doubts here, in Canada, with regard to the position of our country in connection with this problem. The policy of this country, in spite of a great many speeches and statements from our minister, remains as vague as before. In any case, there is nothing new in that.
We need only remind ourselves that a year ago, approximately, on a tour around the world, our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated while in Asia, in the Philippines, to be exact, and in Korea, that sooner or later this country would have to recognize communist China. The Prime Minister made that statement at the time he was in Korea visiting our troops who had just fought against the army of this same communist China. The reaction, in the country, to statements of the Prime Minister was one of surprise especially since he took good care during the same trip not to land in Formosa and visit the Chiang Kai-sheks.
There must have been, also, an extraordinary reaction to those statements of the Prime Minister within the United States state department.
One must hope that the Prime Minister at that time wished to convey, in a somewhat naive way perhaps, that Canada would be ready to make every sacrifice to ensure peace to the world, that our country wished to be on good terms with every nation of the world even with communist nations and that we are a peaceful nation adverse to the waging of war against anyone. But today our government is moved by a vastly different purpose, and it goes to the other extreme. Where before it wanted to flirt with communist China, it is ready now to commit our country. And it lets the United States know that it would be unthinkable for us to remain neutral if they were engaged in a major war with that

External Affairs
same communist China that our own Prime Minister was ready to recognize just a little over a year ago.
Of course conditions have changed in the last twelve months. As a matter of fact the United States have decided to defend Formosa for Chiang Kai-shek and, what is more tragic, to defend the islands of Quemoy and Matsu.
The danger of war is extremely serious at this time in the China sea. The Chinese nationalists and the American military leaders claim that the islands of Matsu and Quemoy are necessary for the defence of Formosa. They wait only for the decision of the President of the United States to defend them and to keep them in the hands of the nationalists, even if those islands cannot be defended without invading the mainland or resorting to atomic bombing. And yet the disastrous effects of the Hiroshima bombing on the moral prestige of the Americans among Asiatic peoples is something that can never be measured.
Even England, faithful ally of the United States, refuses to become involved with our neighbours to the south, and does all she can to restrain them. Canada should follow this example and urge Washington to let these islands go, as they cannot be defended anyway. As far as Formosa is concerned, let us hold a referendum there under the guidance of the United Nations.
That would be better than to make speeches like the one delivered in Toronto by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), a speech which conveys the impression that this country was in a hurry to commit itself and that this government did not want to miss the opportunity to embark upon another international venture.
We have international obligations as a NATO member, and also as a member of the United Nations; but that is apparently not enough, because one of our ministers had to anticipate conclusions and make statements equivalent to this completely colonial slogan: "When the United States are at war, we are at war".
Obviously, our allies to the south are our closest allies, and any international problem which our allies have to face affects us. We must therefore give them all possible support inasmuch as they are the most powerful western state which has to assume tragic responsibilities and to lead a cold war against the Soviets and their puppet states.
But there is a difference between this and going as far as to tell the whole world that

every major war involving the United States will also involve us.
In 1914 and 1939 Canada was engaged in major wars in which our participation was meant to save the very existence of democracy in the world. Nevertheless, in the first world wide conflict our friends to the south waited until 1917 before they declared war. During the last war they waited until they were attacked at Pearl Harbor before taking up arms on our side.
Apparently, though, the government believes that this country must commit itself to any kind of adventure.


Mr. Lesage:: On a point of order: Does the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) mean by that that the Secretary of State for External Affairs recently stated that when the United States are at war, Canada is necessarily at war also?


Léon Balcer: Possibly the minister did not mean that, but a large number of citizens of this country did receive that impression. If the minister so desires, he can always state his case later in the debate.


Mr. Martin:: You know that that is not the case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is not what I said.


Jean Lesage: The member for Three Rivers knows very well that the Secretary of State for External Affairs never said anything of the kind and that nobody who has read his speech in good faith could ever come to any such conclusion.


Léon Balcer: I am sorry to see the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources accuse those who gathered that conclusion from the minister's speech in Toronto of being insincere.


Jean Lesage: Or else they did not read the speech.


Léon Balcer: Or people who did not read the speech. However if the minister wishes to comment on my remarks he will have the opportunity to do so during the current debate.


Mr. Habel:: You can do so on television.


Léon Balcer: Formerly the saying was: "When England is at war, Canada is at war too". Nowadays, the old colonial motto is flourished under a different form: "When the United States are at war, Canada is at war".
What becomes of our independence with all that? The government seems to think little of it.

The minister may have spoken thus in order to obtain from the United States a more generous attitude toward us with respect to commerce.
Well, if that is the reason for his last speech in Toronto, you must admit that it has been a complete flop, as evidenced by the stand taken by the United States on the GATT agreements and, more recently, by the statement which was made on the oil issue by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe), and the long silence of the American administration on that same issue. While the United States is reluctant to encourage the development of our oil resources which are essential for the defence of the whole western hemisphere, we are in a hurry to tell them that if they become involved in a major war we cannot but rush into that war at once.
It is obvious that the United States is essentially and vitally important for our trade. But it is unthinkable that our Secretary of State for External Affairs should commit our future and give up all thought of independence or neutrality in the event of a major war involving our neighbours to the south.
The policy of this government seems to be that Canada should take part in every venture and that her real independence can never be asserted.
Between recognizing communist China, an idea to which the Prime Minister was partial, and going to war against that country there is a middle road which it should be the goal of our Canadian diplomacy to follow. (Text):


Alistair McLeod Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I object to the way in which this debate has been carried on. The organization of the debate has been bad. I see no reason for a debate being started about a month ago and carried on in this hit or miss fashion without any continuity whatsoever. But it has had one advantage, at least to myself. I was able to go home and talk with various groups of people about the declared policy of the minister, and to get the reaction of my own constituents, and have certain convictions of my own confirmed.
It is almost a truism to say that one of the affirmative purposes of foreign policy is to try to create such conditions that the people of Canada can live in peace and security. The negative aspect of foreign 50433-192J
External Affairs
policy is to try to avoid war. On both counts I do not find the policy of the government at all reassuring. We had from the minister an analysis of the situation in Asia with which I find myself in substantial agreement. I think what he said was right. We are engaged in a battle for men's minds. We have to win that battle. The minister knows how to go about it; but what the minister has said and what government policy is are two entirely different things without any reference whatsoever to each other.
The minister gave an analysis of Formosa, and my feeling was and still is that to some extent he was giving the Pentagon the green light to go ahead. But not even the Pentagon has gone quite as far in some ways as has one of the minister's colleagues. I suppose it must have been with some trepidation that the government learned that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) was going to Australia. Possibly they were worrying about what he would say, what commitments he would make and what statements of policy he would enunciate which would provide some embarrassment for those left here.
The minister told us in his speech that we have engaged in no commitment to share in the defence of Formosa; he said that our obligations in this matter arise only out of our responsibility as a member of the United Nations. But apparently his colleague, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is not of the same mind, according to a press dispatch today, part of which is in direct quotation marks. It is again possible that this is another evidence of the occupational disease of ministers in being misquoted, as referred to by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron). However, as I say, some of this is in direct quotation marks. This dispatch is dated Canberra, Thursday, April 21, and is by the British United Press. The minister was attending a press conference and the report reads:
"Canada agreed with Australia's stand on the Formosa crisis," he said. "We take the same view as Prime Minister Menzies and are prepared to go full out for Formosa but I do not think we can go full out for the offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu which historically are a part of China."
Here is a new enunciation of government policy. The second in command in the government says the government is prepared to go full out for Formosa. We ought to know, and know very soon, whether this is a new statement of policy on the part of the government or whether the Minister of Trade and Commerce is giving assurances to the Australians which I am convinced the people of Canada are not prepared to give.

External Affairs
If the Minister of Trade and Commerce is labouring under what I hope is a delusion and misapprehension, is it not conceivable also that our friends to the south may be labouring under the same delusion and misapprehension as to what is the real opinion of the people of Canada? When the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was speaking in this debate he told the minister that when speaking in the house he had watered down the remarks he had made in Toronto. I read the speech which the minister gave in Toronto, and I listened to and read his speech here. I probably have no knowledge whatsoever of semantics, but if there was any dilution it was not obvious to me.
I think the hon. member for Prince Albert was labouring under the same sort of delusion as certain newspapermen in Ottawa were labouring under after the visit of the United States secretary of state, Mr. Dulles. After Mr. Dulles had spoken I read in several newspapers that members of parliament were impressed. Perhaps that was the right word to use, but I am not quite sure in what context they used the word "impressed" because some of us were so impressed-that "some" extends beyond the members of my party-that we had some difficulty falling asleep that night just wondering what the secretary of state of the United States had in mind.
What the minister of external affairs said-and this is the important part-was that if the people of the United States were engaged in a major war in which their very existence as a people was at stake we could not stay out of it. The question arises as to who decides when the existence of the United States is at stake. Is it going to be the prerogative of this sovereign parliament to make that decision, or is it going to be decided for us outside the borders of this country? Perhaps that is a matter which only time will decide, but as far as we in the C.C.F. are concerned this parliament and this country are going to make the decision, and nobody else is going to do it for us.
We are faced with problems in Asia which we either solve or I think we may perish. The United States feels that communist aggression in Asia is a menace to its security. The United States feels that further aggression must be stopped. I cannot see how the offshore islands of Matsu and Quemoy, if they were occupied by communist China, would be a menace to the security of the people of Canada. As a matter of fact I cannot see how the occupation of Formosa by the same troops would be a menace to the people of Canada.

There are others who disagree with me. I am certainly not advocating the handing over of Formosa to Peking, but I fail to see, in terms of logistics or anything else, how the occupation of these offshore islands can possibly affect our security. But there are those in the United States, and some in high positions, who affirm that their security would be imperilled were the offshore islands to be lost.
The United States feel that the Chinese want to control southeast Asia, and I think they are quite right. Therefore the United States feel that they must persuade as many as possible of the people in southeast Asia to join them in a fight against communism. In that respect they are all wrong, because the people of southeast Asia are not remotely interested in this western fight against communism. They are most interested in the fight against poverty, and I think we can save them for our side if the policies as enunciated by the minister are carried out by the government.
On the other side of the medal, China feels that the presence of the nationalist government in Formosa is a constant threat to it. I happen to disagree. I do not think that Chiang Kai-shek and his troops present a menace at all to the mainland of China. Nevertheless I wonder how I would feel if I came from British Columbia and there was a potential enemy power on Vancouver island. I think I might feel as the Chinese do with a hostile government within 200 miles of their borders. The Chinese feel that Formosa is a threat as long as Chiang Kai-shek and his myrmidons are there; it is a threat which has to be eradicated. They know that the United States has entered into an alliance with the nationalist government in Formosa. They know that air bases will be made available to the United States, and it is an elementary step in logic that if Formosa is a threat to Chinese security these bases have to be destroyed.
We are facing the irresistible force and the immovable object, and if they both persist in following the same path they have been pursuing in recent months then tragedy may ensue. But if sanity supervenes the situation might be saved. If it does not, with what are we faced? There might be in the United States conception a war of survival, because I do not believe that a war over the offshore islands can be a limited war. I do not believe that a war between two major powers can be a limited war. Once it starts, it goes, and it goes completely. However, I offer this opinion. I do not think there is going to be war over these islands, because I think there is a growing revulsion among the people

of the United States against it, despite the fact that there are those near the top of the administration who perhaps would be willing to indulge in such a dreadful venture. But the feeling of the people of the United States is communicating itself to those in authority and that, combined with the fact that the President knows what war means, may be our greatest safeguard.
Nevertheless there are those in the United States-and again those in high positions-[DOT] who are willing to see us go to war over these offshore islands. Perhaps they have not followed out the logic of their thoughts. If they did, I submit, they would arrive at a picture as black as it is possible to paint. If the United States decides that the security of Formosa depended upon the offshore islands, they will fight for those offshore islands. The Chinese maintain that they are Chinese territory; I agree. They are going to try to take them.
The question is, how will the United States conduct such a war? We have been told on high authority that if the coastal batteries in China fire, as of course they will fire, on the offshore islands, these coastal batteries will have to be obliterated. It would not only be the coastal batteries that would fire on the islands. Surely aircraft would be used also. Therefore the bases from which these aircraft come would have to be wiped out, but how would it be done?
I think all we can do is study with some care the statement made by the vice president of the United States in a speech he made in Chicago on the 17th of March of this year, according to the report in the Montreal Gazette:
Vice-president Richard M. Nixon today warned the Chinese communists in the bluntest of terms they will be met with atomic weapons if they embark upon "an additional aggression".
This is the vice president of the United States.
"It is foolish", he said, "to talk about the possibility that the weapons which might be used in the event a war breaks out in the Pacific would be limited to the conventional Korean and world war II types of explosives. We are not prepared to fight that kind of war. Our forces could not fight an effective war in the Pacific with those types of explosives if they wanted to."
That is the word of the vice president of the United States, one who but for the grace of God might conceivably be president if the present incumbent should die in office. If the Americans decide to use atomic weapons on China the result for the Chinese will be terrible. The result for the Americans will be devastating, for all that will result will be that all of Asia will be united emotionally behind China.
External Affairs
Asia has not forgotten the atomic bombs which were dropped on an Asian country. I think many Asians are still aware, as we are, that in 1945, the Americans had broken the Japanese code. In July, 1945, the Americans knew that the Japanese, through the instrumentality of Molotov and Moscow, were putting out feelers for peace. They knew that all that was stopping the Japanese from suing for peace were the terms of unconditional surrender. In July, 1945, the Japanese were virtually beaten. After July, 1945, atomic bombs were dropped in Asia, specifically in Japan.
Asians have not forgotten; neither, I think, have we. But if we take the word of the vice president of the United States, atomic bombs will be used in a new war. The Chinese after all are human beings, as we are, and they will have a desire to hit back. They will have a desire for revenge, and we would be living in a fool's paradise if we dreamt for a moment that they had not a stockpile of their own atomic weapons, not necessarily made in China but supplied to them by their friends in the Soviet union. We might be careless were we to assume that the air force the Chinese have is such that they do not have long-range bombers; and if they have long-range bombers, even though they can fly only on a one-way mission, and if they have an atomic weapon, I suspect that they will be strongly tempted to use it.
The quickest and easiest way would be over the north, where we have radar screens which may be sufficiently adequate to spot hostile planes, although I am quite sure that visual observations would be used to check the situation. The moment hostile planes are known to be flying over North America or over the Canadian north every American station across the world is alerted. We also know that; and when the situation comes, apart from the fact that our own skies will be darkened with interceptors, it only needs one blunder for the instruments of death to be launched on their way.
In a modern war one does not attack cities, one does not attack industries, one attacks airfields from which opposing aircraft can take off. I am quite sure that the Americans have many Soviet airfields pinpointed, but I am quite sure there are many which the Americans and we know nothing of, and if the final tragedy happened I am certain there would be reciprocity of the worst kind, which would mean thermonuclear war. I do not think it will happen, but it conceivably could, and it could happen this year unless sanity prevails.

External Affairs
As I said earlier, I do not believe there can be a local war between two great powers. But suppose the United States, even in a localized war, finds itself in conflict with China; what is the position of American troops in this country? After all, what is the position of belligerent troops in a neutral country? What would we do? Would we intern them or would we hand them over or convey them to the border and set them free in the United States, or have we a new concept of neutrality, as I think we have- all help to our allies short of manpower? That is a hypothetical question which may not need to be answered; nevertheless, even assuming that wisdom prevails and there is a withdrawal from the offshore islands, the problem is not solved.
One of the things which obsess many in the state department is the fear that the United States will be regarded as a paper tiger. To some extent it is a sign of immaturity, but it is a definite fear on their part. If they come to be regarded as a paper tiger the only answer I can give is that their blundering diplomacy has brought about the situation. Yet I would sooner see the United States regarded as a paper tiger than think that Canadians should have to go and fight for United States blunders.
But there is another fear, namely that the morale of Chiang Kai-shek's troops on Formosa will be hurt or will perhaps be ruined if we give up these offshore islands. Again I answer quite simply that I would sooner see that morale totally destroyed than see one Canadian killed fighting for Chiang Kai-shek and Formosa. As far as we are concerned in this party, not only are we not prepared to support any war for the offshore islands, but we will not support any sort of war for Formosa as long as Chiang Kai-shek is there. If there is any validity in what the Minister of Trade and Commerce says, then there is going to be a fight in this country; because we will fight this issue not only within parliament but in every area across Canada.
We have no business getting into a war to protect Chaing Kai-shek and his admirals and his generals in Formosa. If Chiang Kai-shek is not an interloper in Formosa, that means that Formosa is Chinese territory. We have no right getting into a Chinese civil war. If he is an interloper I see no reason why we should have to fight for him. The internationalization of Formosa has been asked for. That may be a solution. But Chiang Kai-shek must be removed. I am not going to say that he should be put on a modern Elba, but perhaps the China lobby in the United States could
IMr. Stewart (Winnipeg North).]
act as host to him for an indeterminate time. At least let us take him out of circulation in the Pacific area.
One thing the minister asked us to do was to try to find out what the Asian objectives are. Premier Chou En-lai some months ago said this:
Unless we establish a powerful modern industry, a modern agricultural system, modern communications and transport services, and a modern national defence we will not be able to shake off our backwardness and poverty.
I think what Chou said would be accepted by most Asians. They are determined to achieve equality, and with every justification in the world. They are tired of being treated as subject people-as coloured people. We talk-and I have the unhappy feeling that we do so disparagingly-of the coloured people in Asia. Mr. Speaker, white is also a colour. In our own way we are just as much coloured people. Also we cherish our religion of Christianity. I am sure they cherish their own faith in precisely the same way we cherish ours.
A year ago I spoke in debate at the time of the meeting in Geneva, and I referred to the desire of the Asians to be rid of colonialism, their desire to be free and their desire for equality as well. In the opinion of the Asians the only way this equality can be manifested is through a vast program of industrialization throughout the various countries. The Asians are going to decide their own destiny. They are going to choose their own friends. The less we have to do with deciding their destiny, except in a co-operative way, the better it will be. We must realize that revolution is going to be the order of the day for many years in Asia but we should realize also that revolution of that sort can conceivably be quite bloodless. Yet we are afraid of revolution. We who are the creatures, the children of revolution are desperately afraid of seeing it in other places. Let me quote this:
In fostering revolutions wherever they show themselves, in regretting those which have failed, in extending a helping hand to those which seem to prosper, they lend new strength to the apostles of sedition and reanimate the courage of every conspirator.
That is not a statement by some member of the state department about the Soviet union. It was spoken 140 years ago by Count Metternich and he was describing the United States, and quite rightly so, because America was then trying to grow into nationhood. She had had a revolution. The revolution was essential to her nationhood and her well-being. Now we are unfortunately reaching the position that the United States and many others wish to deny this right to Asia. It is amazing how soon the most

ardent revolutionaries become the staunchest supporters of the status quo. We ought to remember that we are all the children of revolution, and that if other countries want to indulge in the same practice they should be allowed to go to it.
Furthermore, we had on this continent 140 years ago what was known as the Monroe doctrine, which worked, due in part to the tacit approval of England. What would happen if the Asian nations decided they were going to have their own particular Monroe doctrine in Asia? What then would we think? Would we think they are criminal or venal and that they must be stopped, or do we concede to them the right which we ourselves have?
There is just now going on a meeting at Bandung which all of us are watching with the greatest interest. I do not expect too much from it, but it may be significant. I do not expect too much because there are many disparate and diverse elements there. There are many conflicts of ideologies. There are perhaps those who aspire to take over the leadership of Asia and who find themselves in conflict with others.
Agreement will be difficult on various matters, but agreement that colonialism must stop will be unanimous. Agreement that there must be the greatest measure of freedom for the people of Asia will be unanimous. Agreement that the standards and conditions of the people in Asia must be raised will be unanimous, because it is disgraceful to think that human beings in Asia who, by our Christian doctrine are the children of God, have a life expectancy of some 27 years. They know nothing but poverty. To expect them to share our fight against communism is to ask far too much of them. What we must be careful about is this. We must not try to draw our specifications for Asia. Let them draw their own blueprints. Let them have their own plans to fit their own needs. Then by all means let us go in and help them. But above all let us help them in every way possible toward achieving that equality of status which they themselves want.
However, one task beggars the imagination. By and large the village is the communal basis of life. It is true that there are cities, but there are not many of them in comparison with the number of villages. The village is the centre of life. It is the centre of the religious beliefs of the people. Their headman is in the village. The local priest is in the village. They have village discipline. There are village mores. There is a sense of belonging, a sense of community, in the village. There is also starvation.
External Affairs
There is also a subsistence level of which the people in Asia are determined to rid themselves.
If industrialization on a large scale is going to start in Asia, there is going to be an efflux from these villages into the towns. We remember the human havoc created by the Occidental industrial revolution. That havoc will be nothing compared to the human havoc which will be wreaked in the Orient unless the west is prepared to come to their assistance. It will be the sort of social havoc in which communism will breed unless the west is prepared to come to the assistance of the various countries. Asia is determined to go ahead with its industrial revolution. The people know the chances which must be taken. They are prepared and determined to take those chances. They are going to need capital, obviously. They are going to need long-range education. They are going to need improvements not only in the myriad of villages but in the cities; I refer to improvements in the way of health, sanitation, and the building of hospitals. They are going to need help in the techniques of industry.
I think that is where the west can play a significant part. With the help of our artisans, craftsmen and social welfare workers, our doctors and our nurses, we must be prepared to place at their disposal whatever resources we have when they request them. But they need capital. There is so little capital because there is so much poverty. After the last war the Russians accumulated capital by fastening on their people a most repressive regime in which life did not count so long as there were savings arising out of production, which savings could be channelled into industrialization. Conceivably, that will happen to Asians, unless they are helped. Those nations which are able to help are the ones which have savings like those of us in the west, savings which must be invested and which could be invested in no better way than in helping to improve the standard of living of the Asian people. We shall have to be prepared to support land reform, no matter how obnoxious some of us may find it.
I am afraid we shall have to encourage nationalism. I never for a moment thought that I would encourage nationalism. I do not like it. Nevertheless, Asia is going through a period through which the western nations went 100 years ago. Nationalism is in the air in Asia, and what I fear is that the Asian people will absorb our vices without at the same time assuming our virtues. But it is a stage through which they are going, and therefore we had better realize it. We ought to be doing all we can to assist them. The great

External Affairs
problem is going to be that they are not going to take 100 years to achieve their hoped for equality through industrialization; they are going to try to do it in a generation if they possibly can. Earlier, I mentioned very briefly some of the problems which would be faced. The minister knows them. The minister has said that all sorts of aid must be extended to Asia, and still we give this miserable $25 million per year through the Colombo plan, and a smattering of dollars here and a smattering of dollars somewhere else.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, but they are raising it to $26 million.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: They are raising it to $26 million, but if they raised it to $260 million it would be a lot better. In the last few years we have spent billions of dollars on antiquated, outmoded and archaic forms of defence.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So have the Asian countries.


Alistair McLeod Stewart: They may have, but we would have had much more defence had we used some of these hundreds of millions of dollars to do the things which the minister himself said should be done.
One of the obvious things to do is to provide, in part, the capital assistance which is required in Asia. But I do not want to see it done on a national basis. If it is going to be done properly, if it is going to be done successfully, it has to be done through the United Nations. There is no other way. Any one nation doing it on an individual basis is going to be suspect, human nature being what it is. The United States people were generous in the Marshall plan. The recipients of that aid have no greater love today for the United States than they had before the Marshall plan. The Marshall plan has helped them greatly as anyone can see from the European statistics on industrial production. But this has to be done collectively through the United Nations, as was suggested a few years ago. At that time a special United Nations fund for special economic development was suggested, with a request for an opening capital of $250 million. What was the position of Canada? Our commitments for defence were too heavy; we could not afford it. Instead of spending some of these tens of millions of dollars on outdated conventional weapons, which no longer are within the ambit of the new rules of war, would it not have been far better to use that money to help the nations of Asia economically and in other ways? But no; this government will not do it.
The minister will speak about it. The minister has the country completely confused. [Mr. Stewart (Winnioee North).!
Canadians believe we are giving away hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the basis of the minister's speeches, yet on the basis of the government's action we are giving away an amount which is quite close to peanuts when we consider the need in the world. We have to help, but we have to help by understanding them. That is what the Asian people want. They want to choose their own leaders. They do not want to have reactionaries imposed upon them, as has been the case in the past. They do not want the Chiang Kai-sheks; they do not want the Bao Dais; and I doubt if many really want the Syngman Rhees. Their leaders must have the confidence of the people. It is conceivable we shall dislike their policies immensely, but so long as they have the support of the people we have to realize that if there are elected leaders in Asia who are going to carry on this fight against communism in their own way it will pay us to support them. It will not pay us to support them in the sense that we are in a position of sovereignty over them. We should support them on the basis of a partnership. We should support them on the basis of mutual aid.
The alternative is plain if we do not do it. The Asians will prefer their own form of communism to western imperialism. I do not think there can be any question whatever about it. The Asians have shown they can solve their own problem. All one has to do is to consider what happened in the state of Andhra in India, some few weeks ago, a state of some 20 million people, which all the commentators told us was threatening to go communist. When I read in Time magazine that this was the case I felt greatly encouraged because Time is lamentably wrong in most of these cases. What happened was that, although the communists pulled every trick out of the bag, nevertheless Mr. Nehru managed to so sway and arrange affairs that the communists were thoroughly trounced. This was done without any help at all from the state department, miraculous as that may seem. Really, I think the Asians are quite capable of solving their other problems in the same way if they get some help.
All I say is this. We cannot make allies of these people by asking them to join in the fight against communism. We are going to make allies by asking to join with them in a partnership in the fight against poverty and disease which has so afflicted them, and which is so implicit in the minister's speech but which is denied so explicity by government policy. We see what the anti-communist regimes can do in India, in Burma and in Indonesia, but there are others who need our help. What we have to realize is

that the fight in Asia is not between western ideas and communism; it is not between western standards and communism; it is not between western economics and communism; it is not between western capitalism and communism. It is a fight against poverty. Until we realize that, and until we are prepared to play our part in combating that poverty, we are going to continue to lose out.
I believe the time has come when the western powers have to make up their minds exactly what they are going to do in Asia. We cannot be the victims all the time of the policies of the United States which leave us confused and unhappy, not knowing what is to be done. There is one good thing to be said for the actual fact of United States policy, it is providentially a far different thing from the numberless policies which are given out and emitted by the brass hats in the Pentagon and the would-be Warwicks in the state department and in other positions of influence in the United States. United States policy in action has fortunately been far different from the suggestions which have been made by the leading exponents of policy in that country.
So, what we have to do is to assure the Asians that it is our objective to see that they are freed from foreign domination and that they have leaders of their own choice. We should show them we are prepared to co-operate with them in every way possible to raise their standards of living, socially and economically. The alternative is plain. The alternative is years of stress, perhaps not years of terror, but years of alarms and excursions and threats, leaving some more and more despondent and others more and more despairing.
I was reading a book of Lewis Mumford's the other day, and he quoted a letter from a correspondent which went as follows:
Each culture evolves a characteristic gesture that symbolizes its essential values. Thus Christianity brings to mind a suppliant figure on its knees in prayer; the Buddha sits in the calm ot eternity with snails in his hair. The gods and Pharaohs are seated-great granite figures of power. There is in these postures an element of the ultimate, an expression of a transcendent attitude.
But what, pray, is our posture upon having miraculously touched the innermost sources of nature's power? Our school children here in the backwoods of my village are taught in daily drill to duck under their desks when they hear the syren blow. The citizenry here built themselves deep underground shelters where they are to cower while their civilization is blown to atoms. And those not fortunate enough to grovel in fear and trembling underground are taught to fall upon their faces in the gutters of their cities and await their doom. Prostrate, our heads deep in the mud, we face the future. Such is our posture.
If we were to accept that, then we would believe we were moving inexorably toward
External Affairs
extinction. And it may be so; but I do not believe it. Obviously this letter is written by one who has become disillusioned, and in turn whose disillusionment has led to despair. Disillusionment might be a good thing; within limits it certainly is. But I see today no rhyme or reason for despair if we do the things we know we ought to be doing. I have no sense of despair, but I have a sense of frustration and a sense of anger. I am angry with a government which, by its blindness and by its refusal to act, by denying its own minister's policy, may perhaps save itself dollars, but conceivably could help to lose a civilization.


Mr. Elmore Philpoii (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, usually I find myself in large measure in agreement with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart). I do not disagree with a good deal of what he said today; but on one point I think surely, upon reflection, he must realize that he was on very weak ground. That was when he asked, what would we do in the event of war, if the United States was in that war and Canada was not? He asked whether we in Canada would intern Americans, or what we would do.
I am sure my hon. friend, who is such a strong supporter-as I am-of NATO, must realize that NATO is the last solid device we have in this world today, apart from the political device of the United Nations, to protect our security. I am sure the hon. member must realize, upon reflection, that he was talking directly contrary to the set-up of NATO. Of course if the United States got into a war, and Canada did not, the uniformed forces stationed in Canada or in any other part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization area would have every legal right to remain there, and to operate there.
I think, too, if my hon. friend will look back in history he will see that there have been other great historic occasions when one part of the world was engaged in war and another part was not; and yet that did not compel the part of the world that was not technically at war to apply all of the technicalities of neutrality.
I think my hon. friend will remember that when the two great world democratic leaders, Winston Churchill and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, met on a battleship at their historic conference off Newfoundland, there was no attempt on the part of the United States naval forces to intern that person who called himself "naval person", simply because he happened to be wearing the uniform of the British navy.

External Affairs
And when I am on the subject of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill may I say that I am glad to see in this debate, unlike the debate that took place on the same subject on February 12, 1953, members of the Social Credit party have not taken quite so anti-Roosevelt a position as they did then, when the leader of that party said, as reported at page 1881 of Hansard:
But, Mr. Speaker, when the full history of these times is written, when all of the facts have been brought to light, there will be many people who will say that the past two presidents of the United States have been the great betrayers of humanity.
In my opinion that was one of the most unfortunate statements ever made in any British parliament; because if the people of the British commonwealth ever owed a great debt to one personality, they owed it to that very great Democrat, the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Nowadays, when it is the fashion to debunk so many people and to besmirch and belittle so many people, and with people making a lot of money debunking persons such as Lawrence of Arabia, and when people can make money by making offhand comments about what was said or supposed to have been said at the Yalta conference, I wish to say that in my opinion we never would have come through the great world crisis, and we would not be here today debating how to deal with this latest menace with which the free world is faced, had it not been for the great support we got from that greathearted Democrat, the late Franklin Delano Roosevelt-even for years before the United States was technically in the war.


Mr. Low:: And we would not have had the problems we face, either.


Elmore Philpott: I would like to hear from members of the Social Credit party in the house perhaps a little bit of the new approach I read the other day in a newspaper. We all know someone has said that you cannot believe everything you read in the papers. Sometimes it is denied.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member ought to know.


Elmore Philpott: However, I am giving the organizer of the Social Credit party, and also the business manager of the "Back-to-the Bible" hour, Mr. Orvis Kennedy, credit for accuracy and sincerity. He said something the other day to the effect that perhaps we should try gestures of good will to these 600 million people of China, that perhaps we should even give them some gifts of our surplus wheat, and see how they would react to that.

I am not suggesting that is a practical proposition; but when I compare the spirit of that statement with the spirit of what we heard this afternoon from my very good friend, for whom I have a warm feeling in my heart, the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore), then I think I would have to go along with Mr. Orvis Kennedy and not with the hon. member for Lethbridge.
When I hear these fulsome flatteries, these fulsome compliments, to Chiang Kai-shek- and I for one will not say one word in disparagement of Chiang Kai-shek or, for that matter, any other Chinese statesman today- I think that sometimes it is an advantage to have held a job for a long time. I happen to have been in newspaper work in Canada for 33 years, and my memory goes back to some of the very first articles I wrote. These were in the years when Chiang Kai-shek was winning southern China. I think I could even dig up some of the old scrap-books; and if I dug up scrap-books and photographs I am sure I would find the Russian adviser, General Borodin, or General Galen, standing side by side with Chiang Kai-shek in the conquest of southern China. And I think if I were to dig up another news item I would find that in February 1943 I wrote an article for many Canadian newspapers stating that there was a state of disguised civil war in China between the forces of Chiang Kai-shek and those of communism.
One of my most prized souvenirs is a letter I received on the official letterhead of the consul general of China in Canada demanding a published retraction in Vancouver papers, and saying that there was never anything so nonsensical as trouble between the communists and the government of Chiang Kai-shek. And so I say that sometimes it is an advantage to have a long memory and to have had an experience in these times through which we are passing.
I intervene in the debate today to make only a few points. I wish first to compliment the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) upon what I thought was one of the most masterly exhibitions of practical diplomacy I have been privileged to see. And if we want to know what a masterly exhibition of practical diplomacy it was, all we have to do is to see what has happened subsequently in the United States. When I saw the technique of the Secretary of State for External Affairs first in his Toronto speech and also in this house, I wondered to myself just what he was doing, and then afterwards I thought I saw the point exactly. I thought that he made the most important point of all, and perhaps he made it first, namely, that in any life and death struggle, whether

we like it or not, we are indissolubly tied in with the United States. Whether we like it or not, in any such life and death struggle involving the United States and Canada, involving in practical terms, if we want it that way, the areas of northern Canada or any other part of the North Atlantic treaty area, which we are obliged to defend, we would be in that war from the first day and from the very first hour. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we cannot too lightly take the view that anything that is happening out in Asia does not immediately concern us, even if, as the minister pointed out, we may have no direct commitments, or no immediate obligations for what happens there. I say that if we ever wanted proof that Canada counts when she speaks out in international affairs or, in a larger sense, that the British commonwealth counts when it speaks, either publicly or privately, to make peace, we have seen that demonstrated in the past month or six weeks.
We have seen a great modification of the United States policy, particularly in regard to those two disputed offshore islands of Quemoy and Matsu. The minister made very clear, not only on that occasion but on other occasions, that Canada believes they belong to or they are part of the Chinese mainland. These, of course, are my own words. It would be the height of folly to have a war over those two particular islands; but there is a quite different situation in regard to the larger disputed island of Formosa.
If we are to make our influence felt in international affairs, perhaps we should be prepared to speak out just as clearly on Formosa as Canada has already spoken out on the offshore islands. I for one sincerely hope that either Canada or some other member of the British commonwealth takes the initiative at the proper time to see that there is something in the nature of a United Nations trusteeship set up over the island of Formosa for a fixed number of years. I would suggest not too short a period; I would suggest about ten years. It seems to me that if we are to make our voice felt, even as practical peacemakers, we have to suggest something that takes into account the actual realities of the world in which we live, and one of the realities in the world in which we live is that, regardless of the legal or even moral position of the ultimate ownership of the island of Formosa, it is a position which, in the opinion of the responsible heads of the United States military, naval and air forces, is of considerable strategic value. I for one would not be too forward, or too brash, in suggesting to the United States that they should simply wash their hands of Formosa at a time when the 50433-193J
External Affairs
Russian communist powers are in fact in an even more dubious position of legality in their occupation of the numerous countries of eastern Europe, including Poland, Hungary, Rumania, Bulgaria, and so on. But if we are to make a practical suggestion that has any chance of being accepted by the different contending parties, it might come out of this United Nations trusteeship idea. A United Nations trusteeship would fulfil the primary strategic objective of the United States military leaders. That objective has been stated by President Eisenhower himself, who said that they will fight, if necessary, to keep Formosa from falling into unfriendly hands.
A United Nations trusteeship would above all be fair to the people who live on the island of Formosa, and we could at least apply that principle of self-determination about which we have heard so often, as early as the first world war. Finally, I think a United Nations trusteeship might even get the agreement of the present communist government of China, because that government must know very well that if it comes to a fight they have no chance to take the island by force from the United States, if the United States wishes to try to protect it. Therefore I submit, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps Canada could make known in one way or another that she would solidly support a United Nations trusteeship for Formosa, and that it should be a stipulated number of years, and that at the end of that time the people of Formosa, in complete freedom, should be allowed to decide their own destiny.
If I understand correctly some of the subterranean half-interruptions that I hear from the other side, I might surmise that someone is saying, well, that is exactly what Mr. Attlee said in Vancouver last Saturday night. Well, Mr. Attlee did say it in Vancouver last Saturday night, and his vast audience, which was by no means composed entirely of supporters or adherents of the C.C.F. party, gave him the most tremendous ovation that has been heard in Vancouver in many a year. But I say that many other people said it long before Mr. Attlee said it in Vancouver last Saturday night. Among others-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar, three years ago.


Elmore Philpott: Among others, I would put the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar a couple of weeks ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Two or three years ago.

External Affairs


Elmore Philpott: The Prime Minister of India a couple of years ago and I think, in my own column, four or five years ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was before you became a Liberal.


Elmore Philpott: I now wish to turn for a minute, Mr. Speaker, to one other subject. The most important fact stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his two speeches on major foreign policy was that, whether we like it or not, we are inextricably bound to the United States in any war involving the life and death of our two countries. Because we are, because that is one of the facts of life that we must accept, because it is true, Mr. Speaker, that if Russian planes ever do come across the north pole and are detected by that northern distant early warning radar alarm, or by any considerable number of the many tens of thousands of people whom we have already enlisted in the ground observer corps, we know perfectly well that, regardless of any formality, the war would be on, the whole thing would be automatic. The retaliatory forces would take off from this country and that would be it. But because it is a fact of life that we are inextricably bound with the United States, we have to exercise very real forethought and great foresight to prevent complications of our position.
I am not now going to refer to the many speeches and writings of the late Colonel McCormick of the Chicago Tribune; but there are people in the United States who have queer ideas as to the future of this North America. Among them has been my very good friend, a very fine gentleman, the new junior senator from the state of Oregon, Mr. Richard Neuberger, who only a couple of weeks ago in Canadian papers from coast to coast advocated what I would call the annexation of this country to the United States, which I thought had passed out with the Tories in the year 1849, when they stoned the governor general. Incidentally, I have always blamed them for doing that as otherwise the capital would have been in Montreal and not in Bytown or Ottawa where Queen Charlotte never fixes the potholes until tuliptime, and apparently this year there is going to be a great scarcity of tulips. As I say, this thesis of annexation went out with the time the Tories stoned the governor general in 1849. We have now had it resurrected from two different ends of the scale.
It is one of the facts of life in the world in which we live that the northern frontier of Canada will have to be defended much more strongly than it is being defended today. I for one want to make my voice heard just

as clearly as I can that I am in favour of Canadians defending Canada. I am in favour of taking over the major responsibility, I do not say the entire responsibility, for defending the north of Canada. It is a fact that among the NATO powers we have become, in the famous words of Mr. Churchill, mixed up together for the common good. But I do say that we should take over the major responsibility for defending the north of Canada, that we should take whatever steps are necessary to see that the major job of defending that North American frontier is discharged by Canadians and with Canadian principles and Canadian policies in mind.
I for one would not want to give the false impression that I am in favour of bringing home from Europe any part of the strong air force we have there defending the western frontier. I had the privilege last autumn of visiting NATO headquarters in Paris and talking with one of the finest Americans I have ever met in all my life, General Nord-stad. Sometimes when we over here on this side of the border listen to the radio or read the press, and sometimes wonder about some of the things the United States might be considering doing, if we had a chance to talk with a real American like General Nordstad we would come away with a great feeling of reassurance. You know that you could trust your life with that man; you know he would never give any order that you would not give yourself if the fate of the two countries was at stake.
When I see that we have very large forces stationed in Europe and when I read that strong pressure is being exerted by some quarters to station greatly increased forces in northern Canada and that there is some suggestion that perhaps if we have not enough Canadian forces to go around we should station a large percentage of United States forces in northern Canada, I for one am completely opposed to that suggestion.
I believe that Canada should be defended by Canadians. If we have not enough air force or enough ground troops to discharge all of our obligations, it would be better at the proper time and in the proper way to transfer some of the forces which we now have in Europe, have them take over the job of sentry duty in the north and have them replaced by United States troops which some people are now suggesting should be sent to defend our northern frontier.
While I am on the subject may I say that in my opinion the time is coming when we will have to have considerably more ground forces. I for one would like to see this

country experiment a bit and I have a suggestion to make to my very honoured colleague, the minister of defence, of whom I think all British Columbia is so proud at his having been given this big and onerous job, which he is doing so well. I should like to suggest to my colleague the minister of defence and to his colleagues in the cabinet that consideration should be given to a modification of an old plan that was used as early as the first world war.
I should like to see, beginning with November 1 each year, a period of training started for perhaps 20,000, 30,000 or even 40,000 of our young men. During the past few weeks I have been checking with people whose military judgment I respect and who should know about these things. They tell me that the proper kind of intensive training would turn out very useful soldiers after a six-months codrse. I for one would like to see this experiment tried.
I think one reason why many of our young men are not joining the armed forces is the length of the period of service. Not long ago I checked to find out why more men were not joining the R.C.M.P. and the reply I got was, "Who wants to sign up for five years?" The same argument might be used with regard to the armed forces.
In any event I throw out the suggestion that Canada should consider a new way of raising and training the military forces which are going to be necessary if we are to have the increased protection which we need on our northern frontier. Let Canada be defended by Canadians. Every winter we should train several scores of thousands of young Canadians from November 1 until April 1 or May 1; they should be put through an intensive course of training. Then those who desire to be released to return to their regular civilian jobs could be released, while those who wanted to come back the following year to be fitted into a more professional or highly trained integrated unit would have that opportunity.


Mr. J. Wilfrid Dufresne (Quebec West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to make a modest contribution to this debate for the purpose of expressing my point of view and asking: where is communist ideology leading us? My intention is to use the English language for the benefit of the majority of the members of the house and I hope sympathy will be extended to me for doing so. If I should make mistakes during the course of my remarks I am sure the indulgence of hon. members will be on a par with my efforts.
As I said, where is communist ideology leading us? Owing to an intensive propaganda, carefully and hypocritically prepared,
External Affairs
too large a number of human beings, amongst whom unfortunately too many Canadians, consciously or not, and through naivete, ignorance or malice, seem to convince themselves each day, and more and more, that communism is nothing more than a political party which it is possible to join.
Thus indoctrinated, these people hope for the advent of communism to the government of their respective countries because in their ignorance and steeped in the false concepts of this fatal doctrine they look forward to the quick healing of the ills with which they are afflicted and the end of the miseries afflicting them.
On the other hand, the leaders of this pernicious ideology, reactionaries through hate or disposition, harassed with the idea of dominating, materialists to the point of even denying the existence of a Supreme Being, verily believe in the administration of the world by a caste of people without soul or heart, or respect for man as a being, created by God, and they seem bent upon imposing a diabolical dictatorship which would make slaves of the free men of today. Let us not fool ourselves. Communism is not a political party in the real sense of the word, for its doctrines are not founded upon principles of social and economic order. Its bases lack this conception of democracy to which each and every one of us is so deeply rooted. Moreover, it does not have this definition which we have of the democratic regime which, freely chosen by the people, must apply itself to serve the people.
On the contrary, communism is a movement of ideas. It is a complete denial of the rights of the collectivity. Its ideology is a new concept of the world and life, embracing atheistic materialism and denying the existence of all spiritualism. Its leaders and partisans consider it as a pseudo-religion.
Since the end of world war II, out of which the democratic countries emerged victorious, without having obtained peace, the communists, our allies in the victory over the nazi hordes, did not lose any time in invading certain countries which they dominate today, and which are administered by governments selected and approved by the Kremlin, the undisputed centre of communism in the world.
Feeling powerful after the help given the democracies in their fight against Hitler's Germany, and attributing the victory to themselves, without delay they started the conquest of certain countries hitherto democratic, employing, for so doing, their skilful propaganda as well as the methods and the arguments best suited to each centre.

External Affairs
At this point, I would like to make a digression and state that in certain countries they have exploited the miseries and the poverty of the people. We should not forget that poverty gives birth to communism and the best action to be taken to prevent it in Canada is to administer in such a way that every Canadian can have the job he is entitled to and in the meantime be kept away from starvation.
I will always remember what the Italian prime minister said at the national press club in Washington during his last trip there, that the "communist element in his country grew from economic, not ideological causes". At the same time Premier Scelba expressed his nation's gratitude for "generous and spontaneous aid" from the United States, without which, he said, neither Italy nor the rest of Europe could have avoided calamity.
We in Canada are also contributing our fair share in the economic recovery of certain nations with the aim, no doubt, of preventing communism from finding its way into those populations. I therefore do not hesitate to repeat that we are thus making a great humanitarian gesture and that we will have contributed in large measure to upholding the democratic system within those nations, a symbol of peace, justice and future prosperity.
However, we must not forget that misery and poverty have both made their sorrowful appearance in our country and that we owe it to ourselves to do everything possible in order to prevent its disastrous spreading. I also reiterate that Canada's contribution to the member nations of the Colombo plan must be maintained and increased, if possible, but on the condition only that we concern ourselves about our own citizens at least in the very same measure as we do with respect to outsiders.
Communism cunningly filters into all classes, and we cannot allow ourselves to live in this country in a culpable lethargy. Let us only remember the sad examples of Poland, Czechoslovakia and many other countries today living in bondage in Moscow, thus pointing to the fact that the leaders of those days did not foresee the menace that was threatening them and unfortunately became a reality.
Referring to communist propaganda again, I wish to say that to the peaceful propaganda were added the forceful means, the massacres and persecutions, such as we have read accounts of in the free press for a few years and which are the satanical means suggested by Marx himself in the conquest of the world into bolshevik slavery. It matters little what dishonest and damnable means communism must use to attain its aim in the

domination of the world; what really counts is the intended objective. It is the enforcement afterwards of a universal rule which will enslave the free man, establishing a materialistic and atheistic policy, which ignores the authority of our Creator, God, of men and things, but forces the human world to adore the new masters of the world, the eventual successors to Lenin and Stalin.
The communists entertain the hope-I should say that they are assured-that little by little, and maybe sooner than we could imagine it ourselves, the Marxist way of thinking will penetrate all our minds, and that it will acquire the freedom of the cities. If no dike is built against communism, we shall soon note that the people think in a Marxist way, meaning before everything that they have become totally materialistic and atheistic.
Numerous have been those in the world who sacrificed themselves on the altar of well-understood democracy in the course of the two world wars and who have made the supreme sacrifice so that this democracy founded on real peace, justice, entente cor-diale, brotherly love and faith in God may live and endure. If at this moment we cast a look into the painful situation in which those who long for peace and liberty find themselves, we must come to the conclusion that the time is serious and we cannot afford to dismiss lightly the constant menace overhanging our heads, and that we cannot possibly remain indifferent to the continued threats of attack by force of the Chinese communists engaged by their masters from the Kremlin. The idea of domination by soviet Russia is becoming more and more concrete, and the sudden changes which took place recently within the soviet supreme command fairly indicate that the promoters of disunity and war have won a nefarious and dangerous victory for the security of the world.
Their Chinese satellites, obeying blindly Moscow's orders, are thus getting ready to launch on Formosa and its adjacent islands an armed attack of which the main aim is to incite the United States to make reprisals in order to keep that strategic centre, necessary to its defence and still occupied and fortified by Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists.
A retort from our powerful allies and neighbours would undoubtedly throw all the nations of the world into a war, since at that very moment a Russia well armed and in readiness for quite a few long years would already be in the fray behind red China, dragging along with her all those countries which she succeeded in dominating and communizing. The preparations for a conquering thrust are

going ahead at an accelerated pace in red China under the surveillance, the approval and the direction of Moscow, and from one moment to another the world will have to face that stark reality.
It will be the launching of a war aiming at the conquest of the peoples, to the benefit of a disastrous and diabolical ideology. It will be the seeding of devastation, sorrow and death. It would no doubt be the beginning of the requiem of our democratic liberties, if the communist forces were ever to emerge victorious.
Mr. Speaker, communism is heading us, little by little, towards a future which every man, ever so little serious, cannot envisage with optimism, short of finding a quick solution which would prevent the destruction of the human world.
I do not pretend to have found that solution, but it seems to me that it is open to any man, particularly to those who occupy responsible public positions, to collect himself and to search for suggestions likely to solve a problem of such importance and seriousness.
In the manner of Christians, which we are, we believe that God and God alone was the Maker of man and things, and that it belongs to Him only to determine the end of things and human beings.
We can entertain different views as to the means we should take to avoid an international struggle which would bring into conflict nations having widely opposed ideologies, and on the strategy to follow in order to ensure our defence.
In the light of facts and circumstances we must, however, not forget that everything must be tried so as to establish peace in the world, token of happiness and prosperity: that peace which was promised by God to men of good will.
The general public, together with certain persons who hold positions of authority, do not seem to see and realize where a war, waged with the H-bomb and all similar devastating modern armaments, would lead us.
If we but remember what happened when an atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, causing death and destruction, we shall see that an H-bomb can destroy at the same time cities of such importance and population as London, New York and Moscow.
If an H-bomb war were to be waged, it would mean that in no time at all the world would literally be wiped out. If all the inhabitants of London, New York and Moscow were to be exterminated, the world could, in centuries, rebuild, and the whole thing would be looked upon as a minor disaster, however
External Affairs
considerable it might be. But we now know, more particularly since the Bikini test, that the H-bombs can gradually spread their destructive powers over a much wider area than that the scientists had at first forecast.
It is now authoritatively recognized that one bomb can be made with a destructive power 25,000 times greater than the atomic bomb which once destroyed Hiroshima.
Such a bomb, the explosion of which takes place in the air or on the sea, has radioactive particles which spread in the air. These radioactive particles gradually reach the surface of the earth in the form of deadly dust or rain. It was with that dust that the Japanese fishermen and the fish were infected, even though they were altogether out of what the American experts considered to be the danger zone.
As yet, nobody knows just how far those radioactive particles can reach. However, the most competent authorities are unanimous in saying that a war where the H-bomb would be used could bring about the end of the human world. It is to be feared that if a great number of those bombs were used as a means of attack or defence, this would mean universal death; it would mean sudden death for a fortunate minority only, for it would mean, for the greater number, a slow death accompanied by tortures which it would be impossible to depict.
We therefore have to face a situation which deserves a care from which we cannot escape. We must make a thorough examination and ask ourselves what means to take to avoid a war, without however forgetting that we must, at all costs, stop the forever growing menace of communism in the world.
In the gospel, our Lord gave us this saying upon which every Christian should meditate and put into practice: "Love one another". He did not only give us this advice, since He gave us the example by sacrificing Himself on the cross, in His great love for the world.
More than ever before, it is high time that the nations resume the practice of that doctrine, that we follow the example which was set by our ancestors, and that the feeling of brotherly love which formerly prompted man again become the prerogative of our life and our future.
Whatever our relations may be, let us remove from them, hypocrisy, untruth, pride, the hunger for domination and love of lucre. With regard to diplomatic relations between nations, may they be founded upon frankness and honesty. Let us remember that wile and deceit last only so long, and that sooner or later those who employ those contemptible means inevitably get caught in their own snare.

External Affairs
The communists forget all about the existence of God and base their policy and desires of conquest on political data only; they cannot be imbued with love for their fellow men and are inevitably unhappy, deceitful, lying, proud and arrogant, acting only through animal instinct. Within their minds, they keep alive that hideous cancer, that ideology condemned by faith and good sense, which communism is, and of which the deadly propaganda has no other aim than to poison the heart and soul of those whom it has indoctrinated, only to kill them afterwards.
We must therefore face the following alternatives: First, the conquest of the world by anti-social, anti-patriotic, anti-Christian communism, which would turn us into beings with an animal instinct, slaves without ideals and future. We should forever say good-bye to private enterprise and to our status of free men and should renounce our glorious past and our most noble, patriotic and religious traditions. Our life would be affected by the horrors of those massacres and persecutions, the establishment of those state prisons which we call concentration camps, the infamous tortures of those people who are thirsty for blood and tears, and finally death, without the satisfaction of having near us one who would at least pray for the salvation of our souls.
Second, the gradual destruction of humankind by means of that H-bomb which by degrees would wipe out men and things, and which would make us suffer the most atrocious pains. Those sufferings would be equalled only by those endured in primeval days, when men were straining to find inconceivable ways of torturing the early Christians.
In order to avoid such a catastrophe, I can only see one solution, and without doubt the best one to protect imperilled humankind. I refer to the return to God and His teachings, through prayer, so that He may inspire the aggressors to discontinue the expansion of their subversive doctrine and prevent them from going into mass assassination of that world which He created, and that He alone has the right to annihilate.
Let us urge the leaders of our democratic nations to call upon the guidance of Providence in all their discussions. Let them call upon the guiding light of the Holy Ghost, who will enlighten them in the important decisions which they must make for the happiness, peace and security of the peoples whom they administer.
#


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: When I was in Vancouver at Easter, Mr. Speaker, I was interviewed by a member of the Vancouver press and he asked me a question concerning

the attitude of the members of the House of Commons towards external affairs. He asked me if I thought the majority of the members were interested in Canada's external affairs or foreign relations. I found that question rather difficult to answer. I said that I imagined everyone in the House of Commons, like everyone else I presume who thinks at all, at least occasionally must have a few questions in his mind about our relations with the rest of the world. I was of the opinion, however, that a great many members of the house felt that they were quite uncertain as to what Canada's foreign policy actually is, and therefore they felt incapable of commenting on it, either commending it or opposing it.
There is a strange quality about Canada's foreign policy, Mr. Speaker, almost an impression that it is all done by mirrors. We have to find out what our policy is by a careful examination of the statements that are made to tell us what it is not. It is a very difficult process. In fact, sometimes I am reminded of the old Greek stories about the Delphic oracle when I listen to our minister of external affairs. You will recall that the Greeks used to go to Delphi and they used to put their questions to the Python priestess there, who came out with very cryptic answers. The devout pilgrims used to look at the answers and scratch their heads because there were two or three interpretations as to what the answer meant. I feel that for the last two or three years we have been somewhat in that position with regard to Canada's foreign policy.
Of course, the underlying basis of Canada's foreign policy, as the minister of external affairs has told us repeatedly and quite rightly, is the fact of our geographical proximity to the United States and the necessity of taking into account our relationships with that country before any other consideration. This is quite true, and it is an obvious fact. But for some time I have regretted that, beyond the formal commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, our government has not really come out with a forthright statement of our intentions with regard to the United States in the event of an attack upon North America. It is true that it is implied, in fact it is stated, in the North Atlantic treaty that we shall have to go to their aid in repelling an attack on the other members of NATO, of which the United States is the major ally.
I have this feeling, that if our government were to state quite plainly and bluntly to our American friends and the rest of the world that any attack on the United States, whether through Canada, through Hawaii, California or Florida or anywhere else, would

not merely see Canada dragged in by the hair of her head, but would see Canada quite actively and at the very outset placing our entire resources behind repelling those forces, then our position would be stronger. I do not like to think of Canada as being merely the Belgium of another war. We should have a more positive stand. We should state quite plainly that we recognize that the safety of the United States is our safety. If we made that very positive then we would be in a position to speak bluntly and plainly to our United States friends when they pursued policies which to our mind are policies which may very well invite that attack which we must help them repel.
We do not do that. Instead of that, we permit ourselves to be pushed along a number of very dubious policy paths, paths that cause a great deal of concern, I am quite sure, to every member of this house including the minister of external affairs. I want to refer rather briefly to one policy decision that we made this year. I do this, not in any sense of attempting to say I told you so, but merely as an example of the danger of following a policy about which we have some misgivings. I refer to the ratification of the Paris treaties. I do not think anyone will deny that practically every member in this house had very grave misgivings, and the minister himself told us that it was with grave misgivings that he advocated this policy, but he could see no alternative. There were some of us who considered that those misgivings should have dictated our policy.
The news from Europe recently does tend to cast some doubt on the wisdom of the policy that was decided upon at that time. The news, for instance, of the negotiations between the Soviet union and Austria is, I think, very ominous because we see here exactly the pattern of the advances the Soviet union will make to West Germany. We see the very ominous prospect, Mr. Speaker, that the Russians will be prepared to offer the German people the great prize in which they are interested, that is reunification of Germany. While they will do that ostensibly on the basis of having a neutralized and disarmed Germany, and while that reunited Germany may for some time be disarmed and neutralized, we should never forget that, reunited under the auspices of the Soviet union, the eyes of the German people will be turned eastward in gratitude rather than westward, as they might have been had we taken another policy.
We paid another very heavy price in connection with that, and it is one of which we had warning. I heard of it in Europe when I was there last year. I refer to the collapse
External Affairs
of the only honest, progressive and decisive government that France has had since the end of the war; that was part of the price we paid for it, turning France back again into the hands of people who had been signally incapable of bringing France back to her previous pre-war status, to say nothing harsher about them. It was quite obvious that Mr. Mendes-Franee was able to maintain his hold over the national assembly merely because the members of the national assembly knew the nation was behind him. It was behind Mr. Mendes-Franee because of his decisive handling of the Indo-Chinese problem and his announced determination to deal with some of the worst economic evils, transferring more of the burden of the cost of administration to the shoulders of those who could best bear it, the improvement of social services for the French people and, in short, bringing order into the French economy. And he had, on account of that program and on account of that achievement in the international field, such public support that not even the rather dubious elements in the French national assembly were prepared to throw him out.
But the moment that we in the rest of the western world insisted that Mr. Mendes-Franee put his head on the block and agree to German rearmament, that popular support was cut away from him, and immediately his assembly support followed, with the result that Mr. Mendes-Franee fell. And instead of having a potentially strong and determined ally we have now another demoralized country, again struggling in the pit of political corruption which, unfortunately, has been the fate of France since the war.
This I think can be attributed to our determination to follow the predominantly American line of policy. I do not think anyone will deny it was that tremendous pressure of the United States that induced the rest of the western allies to support ratification, and I suggest we have already paid a very heavy price for it.
There is not much that can be done about it now. It is finished; it is water under the bridge. But we have now some other policy decisions to make that may very well affect future events. At this time there is a conference going on in Asia, the Bandung conference; and of course what is happening there is a test of strength between two Asiatic figures, namely Nehru of India and Chou En-lai of communist China. And the fate of Asia may very well depend upon which of those two men prevails at that conference. I, myself, am not very optimistic. I believe that Mr. Nehru, however, might well have

External Affairs
been placed in a position of being able to capture all Asiatic minds-and that is what those men are trying to do today-had we in North America devoted even a small fraction of the wealth we have devoted to defences of rather doubtful value to make a massive contribution to the capital development of India and the rest of southeast Asia. Then Mr. Nehru would have been able to offer the Asiatic peoples economic progress plus freedom.
But if he is placed in the position of merely offering them political freedom without economic progress, then Mr. Chou En-lai, who, undoubtedly, has the dictatorial power to develop China as he and his advisers wish to develop it, is going to be in a much stronger position to appeal to those people. Because of course it is a truism that if starving people are offered the choice between a loaf of bread and freedom, they will reach for the loaf of bread. And I am very much afraid that Chou En-lai has been left in a position of having more loaves in his basket than Mr. Nehru.
That is another opportunity we have missed, quite largely I think because we have not placed ourselves in the position of being able to speak bluntly and plainly to the most important figure in the western world, the United States of America, which undoubtedly has demanded that we devote an enormous part of our resources to these defences which, as I say, are of rather doubtful value in the view of military experts who presumably know what they are talking about.
However, I am not a pessimist. I do not think we will have another war. I think Sir Winston Churchill's last dictum was perhaps the most profound, when he said that the world has developed weapons which both sides are afraid to use, and that we may very well find some safety in the shadow of world annihilation.
But we then face another danger. And it is a danger that was rather neatly expressed two days ago by the medical profession of Great Britain, in a statement appearing in the Medical Press, which is the professional journal of the medical profession in that country. I wish to quote from this, as it appeared in the Globe and Mail as a reprint from Reuters in London on April 19. It says:
Atomic and hydrogen bomb tests should be halted pending international research into the genetic hazards of radiation, the Medical Press. British professional journal, said today.
"If the struggle to perfect nuclear weapons is in fact a struggle towards peace it will indeed be ironical if it produces without war the most dangerous and fearful effect which war could bring," it added.

"If in 30 years time we are told that a doubling of background radiation is in fact dangerous that information will only be of academic importance because the doubling will already have taken place and nothing can undo it".
Let us get that through our heads.
The Medical Press suggested that while some of the test explosions might be scientifically necessary others were "largely a sort of sabre-rattling".
"It is even a possibility, and not a pretty one, that there are physicists who regard these explosions with much the same sense of juvenile satisfaction as is manifest in small boys letting off homemade fireworks in the street."
I bring this up because of answers received today to questions asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The questions the hon. member placed on the order paper were as follows:
1.	Is the Canadian government giving consideration to taking the initiative in urging the United Nations to make a study as to the extent to which atomic and hydrogen bomb tests can be made without grave danger to the human race, as requested by the Federation of American Scientists?
2. If so, when will such action be taken?
3. If not, what are the reasons for the government's decision?
The answer to the first question is No-a plain and simple No. The government was not asked if it was prepared to initiate these studies. It was asked if it was prepared to take into consideration taking the initiative in urging that these studies be made. And the answer is No, that they will not do even that.
Then the second part of the question is answered by the answer given to No. 1, it states here. And then the answer to the third part-and this is the interesting part- is as follows:
The Canadian government has been in touch with friendly governments who, through the possession of atomic and thermonuclear weapons, have a direct interest in this matter. Statements made recently by responsible officials of these governments indicate that tests so far have produced a general level of radioactivity which is remote from endangering human life.
Of course these matters should be kept, and are being kept, under constant study as indicated by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the house on April 4. In addition to the investigations referred to by the minister at that time, the scientific conference on the peaceful uses of atomic energy to be held in Geneva in August will consider a number of problems related to the health and safety aspects of atomic energy, including biological and genetic effects and radiation injury and protection.
The government would be prepared to support any serious studies, which gave promise of increasing our knowledge of the problem. It is the view of the government, however, that it would serve no useful purpose for it to take any special initiative at this time of the kind referred to in the question. The government will continue to consult with friendly governments on this important matter.
This is a very interesting answer, and I am sure that the Federation of American Scientists, the British Society of Nuclear Physicists

and the French Academy of Sciences, all of which have expressed concern about this, and have stated categorically that no one knows what the danger point is, will be delighted to know that the government of Canada knows what the danger point is. Because that is what the answer to this question says: They know it. Somebody has told them-
Statements made recently by responsible officials of these governments indicate that tests so far have produced a general level of radioactivity which is remote from endangering human life.
A very strange thing indeed, when the Federation of American Scientists has not yet heard of this discovery, that we have not yet reached the danger level. They tell us it has not yet been established and they are very anxious that studies should be engaged in immediately to discover that danger point. But our government is not even prepared to ask that this work be undertaken by the United Nations. Why not? The only conclusion one can come to, Mr. Speaker, is that this government is prepared to run the risk of condoning all-time, permanent genetic damage to the human race rather than offend Mr. Dulles.
There was a reference in the answer to this question to the answer given on April 4 by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). It was one of his usual extremely voluminous answers. It goes on for page after page. Here is the important part of it, as reported at page 2653 of Hansard:
Since there remain a number of unanswered questions in this field, there is a need for continuing research and investigation into the genetic problem. Increasingly large numbers of people are being exposed to increasing amounts of radiation because of the wider use of radioactive materials in industry, research and medicine. In addition, there has been a slight, though appreciable increase in radiation all over the world as a result of the weapon tests.
However, the best scientific evidence available indicates that it is most unlikely that any significant genetic effect would result from the increased radioactivity that has occurred.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare immediately send a telegram to the Federation of American Scientists, the French Academy of Sciences, and to the British Society of Nuclear Physicists, reassuring them that he has discovered what the danger point is that none of them knows anything about.
For some time, Mr. Speaker, I have been corresponding with a young French scientist, an assistant to Prince Louis de Broglie, who brought this matter to the attention of the world some months ago, and he sent me a book that he had written on the problem, which contains a foreword by a man who, of course, did not know as much about physics
External Affairs
as the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He died a few days ago. His name was Einstein, and he had this to say:
But more important still is your note on the menace to life of the cumulative action of the experimental atomic explosions. If you think I can do anything to support publicly your campaign,
I am only too ready to proffer my services.
Albert Einstein,
December 7, 1954, Princeton.
It is surely a serious state of affairs, Mr. Speaker, that our government has reached such a point that it does not even dare to ask the Americans to have a study conducted of the dangers of their program; when every responsible scientific organization in the world is telling us it is essential that that should be done.


Mr. MaTlin:: What my hon. friend should point out is that the Canadian government itself, through the appropriate departments, is doing the very thing that he says we are not doing.


Colin Cameron: I would suggest with all due deference, Mr. Speaker, that it might be that even the officials of the minister's department would perhaps be aided in their research if they were to co-operate with the leading scientific organizations of the world which are asking that a responsible world organizational study should be instituted. I do suggest that even the most brilliant physicists in our national research council in Canada are not likely to have the opportunities available here in Canada to study the effect all over the world of the explosions that have taken place in the United States and in the Soviet union. Is he telling us that here in an area in which there have been no thermonuclear explosions our scientists can tell us more accurately the dangers than can the Federation of American Scientists, the French scientists and the British scientists? If our own government scientists are discovering some facts about the dangers of these atomic explosions, then it would seem to me the logical thing for our government to do would be to place the results of their inquiries and their investigations before an appropriate commission of the United Nations, no matter how unpopular such a course might be with the American administration, or with those sections of it who produce those statements for which there is no scientific backing whatever, none whatever, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware. As one examines his statement and the statement of his colleague of the Department of National Defence, if it were not the most serious problem in the

External Affairs
world, it would be the most ludicrous situation imaginable. We are told almost in the same breath that there is no danger, and that they do not know what the danger point is. That is the situation we are in today.
I come back to the point I made at first, namely, that unless we come out and face the world with a clear-cut statement of the serious responsibilities that we are anxious and willing to share with regard to the defence of North America and the defence of the United States, we are not going to be in a position to speak bluntly and plainly to those sections of the American administration who are now toying with these great dangers. Surely, we should seek to appeal to those very large numbers of Americans who also view their government's activities in this regard with a great deal of misgiving. Surely, we should be appealing to the American people and their sense of decency and generosity- the American people that we all know are our kind of people. Surely, we should be appealing over the heads of those irresponsible officials who are now doing their best to suppress all knowledge of this matter.
It is surely an ominous and significant thing, Mr. Speaker, when a leading body of American scientists felt it necessary to make a public statement to the world which indicated that they regarded with great fear and misgivings the activities of their own government. If our government is unprepared to take such a stand, I suppose they can console themselves with the thought that if the worst fears of those who are far more competent than I or anyone in this house are realized, there will be no one left to revile them.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset of my taking part in this debate on external affairs to pay a high tribute to Canada's role in world affairs. I feel that as a nation we have done a lot to foster the cause of world peace. I feel that our efforts under the Colombo plan, and the meeting of our obligations in full under the various agencies of the United Nations, have done much to enhance the prestige of Canada in all parts of the world.
I cannot help but remember the days before I was elected to this House of Commons. Each time that I read of the remarks our minister of external affairs made in
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo).I
various parts of the world I was glad and proud to be a Canadian with a spokesman such as that. However, it was not long before I noticed that after every progressive speech, after every speech that to me sounded like a sensible contribution to the cause of world peace, invariably when he got back to Ottawa and had a meeting either of the executive of the national Liberal advisory council or of the federal cabinet, there would ensue a speech which was so reactionary that it almost undid all the good done by the minister's original speech.
This also calls to mind the last annual meeting of the Dewdney C.C.F. association in British Columbia. As a guest dinner speaker we had a Dr. David of India. If my memory serves me right, he was the head of some theological institution in India connected with the United Church of Canada. Incidentally, Dr. David was unable to eat the dinner which was set before him because as he explained, the average Indian is unable without serious after-effects to eat such sumptuous meals as Canadians are able to prepare.
Dr. David outlined the effects of the Colombo plan. As I remember, he said that the income of the average citizen of India is $50 per year. He warned us of communist advances in India and said that if the Colombo plan, which at that time was only in its beginning, was effected as it was then conceived, it would raise the standard of living of the average citizen of India by 10 per cent. He thought that it might, and I would emphasize the "might", be able to save India from communism.
While Dr. David was speaking I had a feeling of pride in the way Canada was bearing its share under the Colombo plan. But throughout the length of his speech, whenever I thought of what we might be able to do, there arose in me a feeling of shame that we were not doing as much as we were able to do. I would remind the house that Canada's contribution under the Colombo plan is less than $2 per annum per capita as against more than $100 per capita being spent on national defence.
I should like to move on to my second subject, and that is the talk given this afternoon by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). I agree with most of what the hon. member had to say, but I take serious issue with one recommendation he had to make and which seemed to me to be an advocacy of a winter army for Canada. A year ago I endorsed what the hon. member said this afternoon, that Canada's defences should be manned by Canadians and by Canadians only. I would say that this policy of Canada

for Canadians is O.K. There is nothing wrong with it as long as Canada's foreign policy is determined by Canadians. If it is to be determined in Washington, then I can see nothing wrong with Washington bearing the onus of effecting their own foreign policy. I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver South when he advocates that Canadians defend Canadian soil with the proviso that Canadian foreign policy be determined in Ottawa by Canadians and not by any visitors we may have in Ottawa.
I was a little leery when I heard of this idea of a winter army, lest it might be a Liberal solution to seasonal unemployment in Canada. I could not help remembering what the Conservatives did to the unemployed during the hungry thirties when they herded them into vacant army camps and looked after them there. Perhaps the hon. member for Vancouver South is being a little more progressive than were the Conservatives, but he has suggested that they be herded into vacant army camps and then be given a little army exercise while there. If this is meant to be a measure of relief for seasonal unemployment, then I will oppose it most heartily.
Another member from British Columbia with whom I must take issue is the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). I know that for a number of years in this house he has been urging the necessity of military preparedness as far as the west coast of Canada is concerned. I know also that he is a wholehearted supporter of a Pacific military pact. He thinks that our defences for the west coast would be much more adequately served if we did agree to a Pacific defence arrangement. Now, I think that he is completely out of touch with the sentiments of the people of British Columbia when he is advocating that policy. I think that the people of British Columbia are prepared to take their chances on world peace. Having in mind the horrible means of destruction now available, we realize that it does not much matter whether on Vancouver island we have three-inch guns or six-inch guns; we in the lower mainland will be obliterated anyway. We are not overly concerned with a Pacific military defence arrangement similar to the arrangement arrived at under NATO.
Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I should like to say that I endorse the C.C.F. policy on external affairs. My leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), has very ably put forth the C.C.F. position, its endorsement of the aims and objects of the United Nations and endorsement of the North Atlantic treaty alliance and a plea
External Affairs
for the neutralization of the island of Formosa. I believe that on other occasions he has asked our government to recognize the existing government at Peking and for the admission of red China into the United Nations. However, I feel that the world situation is much too serious for us to divide ourselves along strictly partisan lines. I feel that when the question of the survival of the human race is involved we ought, for the time of the debate at least, to forget that we are Liberals or Conservatives or members of the C.C.F. or Social Credit parties. I asked for a place on your list, Mr. Speaker, because I would like not only to endorse the C.C.F. position but also to add something to that and possibly what some of you may interpret as some qualifications to the attitude of the C.C.F. I would like to place on record why I first became a member of the C.C.F. What appealed most to me about the platform of the C.C.F. was the stand taken by our first leader, the late J. S. Woodsworth, and by one of his active supporters in this house, the late Miss Agnes Macphail. They were classed as pacifists and at that time I saw a good deal of merit in their arguments. I also recall very vividly to this house that the man who defeated the great power of the British Empire was Mahatma Gandhi, a humble man who believed in pacifism all the way down the line.
I think the Canadian people have about reached the stage where, instead of adding a million dollars for military preparedness, they feel that the Canadian government should say to a man like Dr. Schweitzer in Africa, "You are doing something for humanity; we will give you a million dollars to help you in your work", rather than change three-inch guns to six-inch guns. I think that this government would receive hearty endorsation from the Canadian people in helping this missionary, doctor and great musician. I think our history books in Canada might well be rewritten to place some emphasis on such men as he is and the work he is doing. We might place a little less emphasis on some people who are now in the light of recent inventions becoming a little old, such men as the great Lord Nelson and others like him.
Before I continue, I must at this time express my appreciation to the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Dufresne). He spoke to us, for the benefit of most of us, in the English language. I only regret that the arrangements for opposition members and the appreciation of the government toward the role of opposition members are not enough to enable members of the opposition to enjoy a little leisure time in which they might learn the other great language of this house.

External Affairs
I hope I shall be privileged to remain in this house long enough so that some day I may be able to please the hon. member for Quebec West and take my part in the debate on external affairs in his native language. I sincerely wish to compliment him on his speech, and also on almost everything he said. It was a real revelation for those of us from British Columbia-and it is not Colom-bie Canadienne; it is Colombie Britannique- we sincerely appreciated what we know was a most sincere effort on the part of the hon. member for Quebec West.
The hon. member raised some matters to which I must refer. As I said, I endorse most of what he said, but I wish to refer to his bringing the question of religion into this debate. Mr. Speaker, surely there are some Canadians who believe the Bible literally when it says "On this rock I will build my Church"; there are others of us in this house who believe the Bible just as literally when it says, "Thou shalt not kill". We think that we have the same right to believe one portion of the Good Book as other people have to believe other portions of the Good Book.


An hon. Member:: That is misrepresentation.


Erhart Regier: There was also another statement. I notice an hon. member saying that that is misrepresentation. I say that no one is as guilty of misrepresentation on the political scene in Canada as the Liberal members and the Liberal party in the province of Quebec have been.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Erhart Regier: There were continued insinuations of hatred towards the communists. The Good Book tells me "Thou shalt love the sinner and hate the sin", and I say "Thou shalt love communists and hate communism". That is just as logical. A communist is a human being entitled to the love of his fellow men, but that does not bar us from hating communism. Let us be very careful to make a distinction lest we lose faith in the cause of the western world.
I have often heard it said-and I think it should be said in this debate-that more crimes have been committed in the names of Christianity and democracy than in any other name in human history, and I would like to warn the members who would invoke religion not to tie in free enterprise with religion. Economic arrangements have nothing to do with the order of society which the good Lord ever advocated.


An hon. Member:: That is what you think.


Erhart Regier: If you read the history of His life you will never see any advocacy of free

enterprise. I am not going to argue one way or the other; I will be fair to that extent. But when you attempt to invoke the Almighty God on behalf of free enterprise you are taking in an awful lot of territory, and I would like this especially to be a warning for the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson).


Mr. Patterson:: Thank you.


Erhart Regier: At election time such phrases as "Will you have the Bible or the bottle?" are an insult to the intelligence of the Canadian people.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Who used them?


Erhart Regier: I will go further and say that I am a great believer in the supernatural, if you like. But my God does not need any sword to defend Him. He needs no hydrogen bomb. If He is a god worthy of worship, He does not need human effort at all and His rule will prevail.
Lest I be classified as an unqualified pacifist may I say at this time, as I said a year ago, that I am a firm supporter of the maintenance of law and order throughout the world. I was a believer in the league of nations. I still regret the great betrayal of the league of nations. Just for the record, let me say that it was the democracies which sabotaged the league of nations as an instrument for world peace when they failed to interfere in order to prevent aggression in the Far East and again in Abyssinia. When that happened, the common people throughout the world lost confidence in that world-wide organization.
After the last war ended, the peoples of the world decided to make another effort. I hope they will not have to make a third effort. There may be no one here to make that third effort. I feel that, in a similar way, the United Nations has been betrayed and that some of the democracies in the world today would not be overly unhappy to see the sabotage of the United Nations. At the outset let me say that I think the Soviet bloc was the first bloc-if there were blocs at that time-to betray the intent of the United Nations when they overran what are now called their satellite nations. I sometimes wonder, though, how much we helped the situation by formulating such an organization as NATO. However, if it is the only alternative to the Soviet bloc, I am in hearty support of NATO. I have voted for it in C.C.F. conventions. Yet, I should like to sound this warning. Unless we implement article 2, which I consider worthy of support on its own merits, I believe we shall run into difficulty. Article 2 is the only

insurance premium we can pay for the military aspects of NATO. Unless we are willing to pay that insurance premium, I feel that NATO will end up in disaster.
I have previously indicated my opposition to a similar alliance in the Far East in the way of a Pacific pact. I much prefer the policies pursued by the prime minister of India, namely a ruthless extermination, if you like, of communism-it will be noted that I did not say communists-within his own territory and a realistic approach to this problem of coexistence when it comes to doing business with other nations.
Many people are surprised and are expressing surprise at the lack of enthusiasm shown by Canadian youth with regard to this matter of enlistment in the army, navy or air force. Back home in my constituency there is a man who made a survey on a Saturday of all the young people whom he met. In one survey the question asked was: Would you like to become enlisted in the Canadian armed forces? The almost unanimous reply was that the young men did not know why they ought to enlist in the Canadian armed forces. Then he made another survey and the question asked was:	Would you enlist in an
armed force, under the auspices of the United Nations, designed to prevent aggression throughout the world? He claims that he had almost unanimous endorsation by all the young men he met. I think the lack of enthusiasm on the part of our young men can be explained partly by the lack of a definite Canadian foreign policy.
How do we return to the United Nations, Mr. Speaker? And return I think we must. First of all, I believe we must remember the original intent of the United Nations. The United Nations was formed to prevent aggression and not to interfere in the internal affairs of any of the member nations. If we vary from that purpose, or if we even for one moment ignore the fact that the purpose of the United Nations was to prevent aggression, then we are obliged to remember such people on our side as Marshal Tito, Syngman Rhee and Generalissimo Franco, and we are obliged to give serious thought to what right these people have to being on our side as some of us fondly like to think they are.
I think we could get back to the United Nations and its original intent if we paid a little bit more attention-and I hope our newspapers will do so-to the current Asian-African conference meeting in Indonesia. I feel that a great deal of world history is being determined there. I should like to endorse what was said by one hon. member who spoke
External Affairs
previously, namely that only now are we regretting that we in the western world did not ensure Prime Minister Nehru's being able to carry the day at this Asian-African conference. We have no one to blame but ourselves.
I notice with a good deal of worry what happened with regard to Austria. With the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) I share the worry of the whole western world as to what effect it would have on our situation if Moscow were to agree with the government of West Germany in a manner similar to that in which they agreed with the government of Austria. The government of Austria has said that in return they will remain forever neutral in the matter of military involvements. The government of Sweden has always adopted the same policy. In taking part in this debate I notice that the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) expressed a good deal of concern about what was going to happen and about the inherent dangers in the rearming of West Germany. I feel that we are now just a little bit late in beginning to worry. If we are to give complete sovereignty to the people of West Germany, who are we thereafter to tell them that they may not relieve the sufferings of their brothers in the eastern zone of Germany? I should like to underline what the Leader of the Opposition said when he said that the paramount interest of the people of West Germany is the reunification of Germany.
I was one of those lucky enough to hear the former prime minister of Great Britain, Right Hon. Clement Attlee, speaking in Vancouver on Saturday last. He said that the question of what our foreign policy is depends to the greatest extent on where you are.
Now, I ask this house, where are we in Canada? I follow that with another question and I think it is a logical one. It is this. Can Canada be defended? I doubt that very much; I doubt whether Canada can be defended. About a week before Easter the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) was unable or unwilling to assure the Canadian people that we have even as much as one atom bomb in Canada. He was unwilling to give his citizens that assurance.
In connection with the matter of research, to which the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) so ably referred this afternoon, if the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) had been smart I think he would have assured the Canadian people that he would appoint the top scientists of the dominion to make sure that these thermonuclear weapons will not have-

External Affairs


Murdo William Martin: Will the hon. member permit an observation? If he looks at the statement I made in this house on April 4, he will find I did that very thing.


Erhart Regier: I am glad to know the minister has announced that a committee of the top scientists of Canada has been appointed to investigate the possible effect on the Canadian people. This was new to me, and I thank the minister for that interjection. I hope I have not misinterpreted what he said.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of India, southeast Asia, Great Britain, western Europe and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, considering where they are in the world, must have world peace. Each of these nations, if a major war should break out- let us not play with the idea of minor wars-both right and wrong, will go down to defeat in the holocaust that will ensue.
I hope that nothing I say is going to label me as an opponent of the veterans of Canada. If there are people in Canada who think other than as I do, and if they are willing to make the supreme sacrifice and I am one of the fortunate ones to survive a war, then my first responsibility is to see that these people are as adequately cared for as the rich resources of our nation will make possible.
Also, I shall have no truck with the so-called peace front in Canada. I do not believe in any so-called righteous war against the so-called capitalist oppressors. I do not believe any war or any revolution has ever resolved anything in human history. I come back again to the fact that, if absolute values exist in the world, then absolute values will continue to exist, wars notwithstanding. There are vested interests on both sides. There is the vested interest of imperialist communism and there is the vested interest of international capitalism. I say, a plague on both your houses. We want peace and prosperity in the world for all the people of the world.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: I was
not going to say anything in this debate, but I should like to correct something that I do not think is altogether fair in the statement made by the hon. member who has just taken his seat. First, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Du-fresne) on the speech that he made. I have not always agreed with him, but I do not believe he ever spoke more sincerely than he did today. He came right to the point expressed so ably by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, that love is stronger than hate and faith is stronger than doubt.
I agreed with the hon. member who has just taken his seat when he said he was 
proud of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he made his statements away from home. He was proud to be a Canadian and so was I. But I think he just slipped a little bit when he said that these statements were spoiled when the minister came home and met the Liberal association. I do not believe the minister ever met the Liberal association before he made his statement. The implication is that the minister is one thing at home and another thing away. As I know the minister, he has always given of his best, whether he was on third base on the baseball diamond, in his home, in this house or in Europe. I stand behind the minister 100 per cent in all his statements. He has stood for peace, and peace with honour.
I was talking to an official who served with the army in Korea. He told me two things that I think this house should know. First, he said that communism was failing in China. He proved this by saying the communists were trying to break up the home life in China. Home life has been sacred to the people of China for hundreds and thousands of years, and they do not like it. He proved his statement by saying that refugees are arriving by thousands in Hong Kong. I do not remember the exact number of people who have come into Hong Kong, but I believe the population has increased by over 2 million. These people would not serve under communist rule. The streets are lined with people sleeping side by side on little mats. He said there is a feeling over there that there is going to be a revolution before too long; that may or may not be true.
Another thing this captain told me, and I was thinking about it when the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) was speaking about Korea, was that Korea is hopeful. He said that there was a church a day built and organized in Korea every day for the last three years. I think that is outstanding, and it proves the statement made by the hon. member for Quebec West, that these people appreciate the kindness of the members of the church and that love will win out.
Another reason why I am speaking tonight is the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott). I cannot quote his exact words because my memory would not allow that, but he said the young men of the country should be organized for military training for four or five months of the year, say from November 1 to April 1. He has shown wisdom in that statement, even though he comes from the west. I feel this would be splendid training for the young men who may be out of work,

and would it not be a splendid remedy for those who are out of work for a few months each year? Again I congratulate the minister upon sticking to his guns in the fight for peace with honour.


Mr. Speaker:: When the minister speaks he will close the debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in rising to close this debate I would be ungrateful indeed if in the first place I did not express my appreciation of the encouragement and support I have just received from the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and tell him in reply that I shall be very glad to play third base for him any place, any time.
Mr. Speaker, this debate began on March 24 and, with appropriate intermissions, is finishing on April 21. During the days that have been allotted to the discussion of this subject-and there are few subjects which will come before us which will be more important-the discussion has ranged far and wide, from the atomic pollution of the atmosphere, on which my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Cameron) speaks with such enviable assurance, to the Old Testament, its history and its mores, about which the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Mac-Dougall) talked to us some days ago.
To a very large extent, however, the discussion has been focused on the situation in the Far East, though other subjects have been brought up, and a great many questions have been asked. Tonight I hope to deal with some of those questions. Also I feel I must challenge one or two observations made during the course of the debate which I do not think were correct. It may be that I shall not be able to deal adequately with all the matters raised, in which case I ask the pardon of those whom I have overlooked.
When the committee on external affairs has the estimates before it-and that is the purpose of our present resolution-of course there will be opportunity before that committee to question the minister on any matter raised in this debate, or any other matter concerning the policy or the administration of the Department of External Affairs. As is customary, I shall be very glad to make myself available to that committee for as long as it desires to question me.
In this debate more than one speaker has referred to the valuable part being played in these tense and difficult times by the association to which we belong, and of which we are very proud, our commonwealth of nations. I believe we are all conscious, probably now as much as ever before in our
External Affairs
history, of the value of that association- especially in the service it is now performing not only for the nations of the commonwealth, but for the world at large in providing a bridge, one of the few effective bridges, between the free East and the free West.
In his contribution to the debate the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) devoted most of his speech to our commonwealth of nations. He advocated-and in certain sections of the house this has been advocated for years-what he called the strengthening of our commonwealth. Among other things he asked what was the basic difference between the commonwealth and, let us say, the United Nations. He asked what was the difference between our relationship with members of the commonwealth and with, let us say, a country like Brazil.
Well, if he had attended meetings of the United Nations assembly or other United Nations agencies-and I hope he will have that opportunity-and if he had attended commonwealth discussions, I think he would sense . at once the difference between the two associations. And that is not of course to depreciate the value of the association of the United Nations.
The basic difference in the commonwealth relationship is that it has been formed, has grown up and has been built on the habit and the tradition of co-operation. We have developed within the commonwealth a feeling of close unity. There is a genuine understanding among its members to work together in peace and in war, and a strong desire to co-operate and to work out agreed policies and agreed solutions to problems, even when it is not always possible to do so. And then of course we have the great advantage of a common head in the commonwealth, both for the monarchical and the republican members, and also the bond of common parliamentary institutions and parliamentary traditions.
The hon. member for Oxford feels that we should strengthen these bonds, and that we should develop what he has called a central secretariat. He says that we should also try to work out an intra-commonwealth defence force. Well I would suggest to the hon. member-and this is a matter which has been discussed often both in and out of the house-that if the members of the commonwealth tried to build up some strong and centralized machinery, if they tried to build up a centralized intra-commonwealth defence force, far from strengthening this association it might, indeed, weaken it to the point where it would disappear, at least in the sense in which it exists today.

External Affairs
I think the commonwealth in its present form and organization is doing a most valuable and important service. One of the most useful things about the commonwealth is that it does include within its membership a variety of peoples, at times antagonistic peoples; and if we tried to bring those peoples together in any formal and organized way, for defence or by exclusive economic cooperation, far from strengthening the association we might indeed weaken it.
The hon. member to whom I have referred, while he did not underestimate the difficulties, rather expressed the hope that by this kind of development-and I think I am quoting him correctly-the commonwealth might become or lead to a third power bloc which would be powerful enough to act as a counterbalance to the United States and Russia.
With all respect, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this third force concept, whether it is a commonwealth concept or any other group of states, is a dangerous one, because it would mean that, in a sense, we in the commonwealth were separating ourselves from the United States and coming between the United States and the NATO powers on the one hand and Soviet imperialist communist powers on the other.
I think it is much better to stick to the concept of two blocs, two forces in the world -if there have to be two-the forces of peace and the forces that we think threaten the peace. It is better to line ourselves up with the former and welcome into its ranks any free states wishing to join it. One specific respect in which the commonwealth has been playing a useful part in recent years-and this is a matter which has been referred to by a good many speakers-is in the provision of technical and capital assistance to underdeveloped countries, especially those in southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent under what we call the Colombo plan. The Colombo plan, of course, is more than a commonwealth arrangement; but it was commonwealth in inspiration and organization. It has proved its value and I hope it will continue to do so.
In this debate, some very strong criticism has been levelled at the government by my hon. friends opposite and by some members of the official opposition, that we have not played an honourable part in this Colombo plan; that what we have done was-I think the words were-a mere pittance, or, as it was referred to by one speaker, an insult to the needs of the problem. Well, of course, Mr. Speaker, as is nearly always the case in any human endeavour, we could have done more. But to keep this project in perspective I need only point out that in the four years of the plan, capital and technical assistance
[Mr. Pearson.1
from outside the countries which are members of the plan has been contributed to the amount of $1,300,000,000; last year $340 million, of which Canada will have contributed $128,400,000. That is not large in terms of expenditure on other things. I would be the first to admit that; but I would point out to those who criticize us so bitterly-perhaps "bitterly" is not a fair word, but criticize us so strongly-and I am not objecting to that-and who relate our expenditures in this field to those which we have to make on defence, that the primacy of expenditures on defence is admitted by those very countries which we are helping and who need our help; it is admitted to a point where some of these countries which are receiving capital assistance-and I say this in no way of criticism at all-are now devoting more than half of their already inadequate budget to defence. And some of those countries that are devoting such a high percentage of their budget to defence are the first to proclaim that they have no feeling of menace from attack by outside communist states. I mention this merely to try to show that this is not as simple a problem as is sometimes portrayed. Also, while not unduly satisfied or smug, or certainly not boasting about what we have done, I am not going to be apologetic about it.
I would prefer in this regard to quote the verdict of an outside source, the Economist, a magazine which is often quoted in this house and which, writing about the Colombo plan progress report on December 25, 1954, had this to say:
On the contributing side of the plan, the part played by Australia and Canada is particularly striking.
The Economist went on to say:
In spite of the undoubted achievements of the plan in the past three years, it will be necessary not only to maintain the momentum of economic development in the area but to increase it.
I agree with that. I continue:
But it is not simply a question of finance. Expert technical advice and training is of equal importance, and in this direction the technical co-operation scheme, together with other parallel projects of technical assistance, has undoubtedly played a major part. It is equally important to get more effective planning as well as better management and administration. None of these tasks can be solved quickly. The Colombo plan's future tasks are measured not in years but in decades.
And so, Mr. Speaker, while none of us needs to be satisfied with what we have done, I think we can look forward to a continuation of this plan with resources from this and other countries and with an even greater field for usefulness than it has had in the past.

A planning conference has been set for Singapore next September, when the whole future of the plan is to be examined, particularly in its relationship to United States support, which has been, if I may say so, somewhat more forthcoming in recent months than previously.
The discussion of the Colombo plan brings me to the main subject which has occupied most of our attention in this debate and which I dealt with when I introduced the resolution some time ago, namely international developments in the Far East. Discussion of that subject has, to a very large extent in this debate, revolved around our Canadian relationship with the United States, to a point where it has been difficult at times to disentangle the two things. I think it is a normal and healthy sign that we should be so preoccupied in this house in a debate on external affairs with the most important aspect of our foreign relations at the present time, namely our relationship with the United States of America. I think of that relationship, important as it is bilaterally to us, in terms of collective action, in terms of collective defence, not merely as something between Canada and the United States, but as something between Canada, the United States and its friends in NATO and in the United Nations. I also try to distinguish, in this defence relationship with the United States, the problems which may come from what we have begun to call peripheral conflicts from those which will be posed by a major all-out war of extermination.
Hon. members will recall that when I spoke some time ago in this debate I tried to make this distinction clear. So far as these peripheral wars, those smaller wars, if you wish to call them that, are concerned, Canada, both through its relationship to the United States and through its relationship to the United Nations or to NATO, might be involved in them. But Canada can hardly remain aloof from the latter. We are also concerned with those smaller conflicts because of the danger that they may spread into a larger conflict. There is no better example of that danger than the situation in and around Formosa and the coastal islands. It is possible, of course, that even if trouble were at the beginning limited to that area, it might spread to this continent. If it did spread to this continent it would be very difficult for us to remain aloof from its effect. The facts of geography, apart from other things, would indicate that. Well, how can it spread? It might spread not by any all-out massive attack from some Chinese communist government on the North American continent, because that would not be
External Affairs
possible under present conditions. It might spread by a reaction on the part of the Chinese government's allies, a reaction on the part of the Soviet union, which would result in a massive all-out attack on this continent, the Soviet union being the only power today on the other side which is capable of that kind of reaction.
Now, if that reaction took place as a result of a local conflict in China, that would be an aggression; it would be a violation of the United Nations charter and we would be asked to undertake the commitments which we have accepted as members of the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
When speaking on this aspect of the question some days ago, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that if war broke out over Formosa or over the coastal islands that kind of chain reaction would be absolutely inevitable. I think I ought to quote him at this point because this seems to me to be of importance. Referring to the Secretary of State for External Affairs he said, as reported on page 2350 of Hansard of March 24:
He has but to read the words of Molotov in which he stated that the situation in Asia was of equal concern to the U.S.S.R. In that case it is but fantasy to say that what might happen over there would not become an all-embracing conflict.
I did not go as far as that and indeed I do not think the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) went quite as far as that in his statement, but I do admit that that kind of conflict might spread even though it was not inevitable that it would. I feel, and I am sure that hon. members on all sides of the house must feel, that if it did spread, if that did happen and there was a massive aggressive air attack on this continent, a struggle in which the very existence of the people of the United States and of Canada would be at stake, all our continental, all our NATO defence arrangements and our whole system of collective security which we have built up over recent years would come into play. In that kind of situation, and I limit it to that kind of situation, how could we be neutral?
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) himself admitted this in his statement. I should like to quote from what he said, as reported on page 2877 of Hansard of April 6:
Now, if the minister were merely saying that if a world-wide conflagration breaks out, particularly bearing in mind the power blocs that exist in the world today, because of our geographical position, to put it in the vernacular, we would have had it, one could hardly argue with him.

External Affairs
His leader, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), had this to say, as reported on page 2356 of Hansard:
Perhaps the minister is right. Perhaps if they- Referring to the United States of America. -were engaged in a major war it would involve us automatically, because of our geographical position with them.
I think that in the circumstances which I have mentioned that is self-evident, but I do not from that draw any such deduction as has been drawn by certain members of this house, most noticeably this afternoon, the most irresponsible being that by the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer); I do not draw any deduction from that statement of automatic assurance of support or willingness to intervene on behalf of or with the United States in any war, major or minor, on the continent of China or any place else where that kind of intervention would take place. Whether support in those circumstances could be counted on from Canada would depend entirely on whether our commitments under NATO were involved, whether there was aggression under the United Nations charter.
I want to be quite clear about that. Anything that I said in Toronto and anything that I have said here-I hoped I had made this quite clear the other day but apparently it was not clear enough for the hon. member for Three Rivers-does not mean nor could it fairly be interpreted as meaning that whenever the United States is at war we are bound to participate. It does not mean that we have any obligation to participate in any war except a war against aggression within the principles of the United Nations charter.
Now when I say that, and I am merely repeating what I said in the house the other day, the hon. member for Prince Albert complains that this-I use his own expression- is watering down our support for United States policy which I gave in my Toronto speech. I do not think it is watering down anything at all. What I tried to do the other day, and what I am trying again to do tonight, is to squeeze some water out of the interpretation given to that Toronto speech by careless commentators. Nevertheless, whatever I may have done in the way of squeezing water out, the speech still seems to remain too strong for my friends of the C.C.F. party.
The position that they take, if I interpret that position correctly, is that while this statement in the circumstances which I have mentioned may be true, I should not have said it because it might be misconstrued in the United States and because of that misconstruction they will feel, as someone put it, that they now have Canada in the bag, that 
our influence will have been weakened or will even possibly have vanished in Washington.
Who would be fooling whom by remaining silent about Canada's position in the conditions which I have outlined? We certainly would not be fooling the United States government by our silence, because they know of our relationship to them in NATO and they know of the relationship which we have built up with them under NATO in respect of continental defence. I hope that silence in this matter would not be fooling any potential enemy, because if it did that it would be bad.
However, it might possibly fool our own people. Silence might be misinterpreted in this country with unhappy results for which the government would rightly be criticized. I prefer the verdict in this matter of the Daily Telegraph in London to that of my hon. friends opposite. The Daily Telegraph, referring to Canada and the United States, had this to say in an editorial:
The conclusion to be drawn from the interdependence of the two nations in a major war is not, as some of Mr. Pearson's critics have suggested, that the United States can take Canadian support in a circumstance for granted, and therefore may disregard Canadian views. On the contrary, it gives the Canadian government both the right and the duty to warn and to dissuade.
That remains our right and I hope that we will exercise it on appropriate occasions in Washington. It is also our duty and I hope that we will discharge it on appropriate occasions. It seems to me that the moral of this position is that if all these dangers surround us, little wars with their obligations, or big wars with all their catastrophes, if we are surrounded by these dangers, then the moral is to do everything we possibly can to stop any war before it starts.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar is not in his seat tonight, but I know he has good reason for not being here. I would prefer to refer to his speech in his presence, but I should like to quote what he said, as reported on page 2356 of Hansard:
But I wish to suggest this, that the Canadian people want our government to state forthrightly and without equivocation that we will do everything we possibly can do to ensure that Canada's influence and Canada's policy, especially in its relations with the United States, will be directed toward the avoidance of conflict, political and economic.
We have already given that assurance, but if it will make my hon. friends feel any better I am quite happy to repeat unequivocally that assurance tonight in this house. If we fail, and we might fail, then I suggest that our policy be this: when possible, to

limit conflicts, to prevent them spreading, and then to end them. There is no other policy in the mind of any member of this government.
This debate, Mr. Speaker, has done something else which has caused a good many of us-I know that it has caused me-some anxiety. In certain sections of the house- and I am referring now to the members of the C.C.F. party-it has underlined a very deep uneasiness which they in particular feel about United States policy. That anxiety-and "anxiety" is certainly not too strong a word in view of some of the expressions that have been used in this debate-was expressed both by the leader of the C.C.F. party and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In my view these hon. members, for whom, as they know, I have great respect, and others in their group who spoke, presented an unfair and unbalanced picture of the situation, especially in respect of the United States' attitudes and policy towards Asia. I am now talking about the situation in the Far East. I was especially disappointed, and indeed distressed, by the analysis which was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, not so much of the policy, but of the purpose of the policy of the secretary of state of the United States. On page 2878 of Hansard he said this:
I think it is Mr. Dulles' primary purpose to keep war away from the United States.
A few words later, he says:
If he can keep war away from the United States-if he can keep it in the Pescadores, in Quemoy, in Matsu or in northern Canada-his aim is met. His aim is to keep war away from continental United States.
We may have differences of opinion with Mr. Dulles on matters of policy. I have had them myself, and no doubt will continue to have them. We may have one view or the other about the wisdom of his policy, but I think that it is most unfair to suggest that the secretary of state of the United States, who is serving in the government of President Eisenhower, has any other purpose than that which we have in this house, to keep war away and not merely away from the continental United States. I would not like that kind of statement to go on the record of this house without the kind of challenge that I am giving it now.
The hon. member also said-and this sentiment was echoed by other members of his group-that our foreign policy should be made in Ottawa only and not in Washington. Well, Mr. Speaker, as long as Canada is a sovereign state, the decisions in foreign policy and any other policies have to be made in this parliament of Canada. That is a very
External Affairs
different thing from saying that our policy can only be made in Ottawa and should not be made or even influenced anywhere else. Foreign policy in this world of interdependence cannot be made in any one country or any one capital no matter how powerful that country or capital may be. We are working together today in a peace coalition, and the very essence of that coalition is that every member of it acts only after discussion and consultation with others. In that sense each member must influence the other members' policy, and I hope it will remain that way, because that is the way it should be. That gives our best chance for peace, by collective policy and collective action. In this respect I am distinguishing between decision and the formulation of policy. Suppose the United States adopted that maxim and made its own policy solely in Washington, or the United Kingdom decided to make its policy solely in London, or the French government solely in Paris; it would not be long before the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would itself dissolve. If it dissolved we would not be worrying so much about whether we were making our own policy; we would be worrying far more about our protection against potential enemies even than we do now.
Foreign policy in a coalition working for peace is bound to operate collectively if it is to succeed. That does not mean that we are merely tagging along behind American decisions. It may be that my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre and some of his colleagues think so. He himself said, as reported on page 2877 of Hansard:
We feel the result is that Canada has said-
This refers to my statement in Toronto.
-that we regard ourselves as quite free to make any decisions we want with regard to foreign policy, so long as they are agreed to by Washington.
Well, Mr. Speaker, with all respect, that is a distorted and unfair interpretation of what I said in Toronto or what I have said in this house, and I only need mention one example to prove how unfair it is. Has Washington agreed to our statement of policy that we will not intervene in Matsu or Quemoy if they are attacked by the forces of communist China? We have made that statement and I am happy to repeat it tonight, but it was not made, nor was the policy decided, after any agreement in Washington; on the contrary. That statement then was unfounded.
Another statement from the same group was made to the effect that apparently I feel now that I have to go along very easily and readily with the views of the secretary of state of the United States. I hope that Mr. Dulles' views will be such that I can go along with them easily and readily, but I can assure

External Affairs
you, sir, if any assurance is needed, that I will not hesitate to disagree with them when I feel that it is undesirable and unwise to support them. It seems to me that the trouble with my hon. friends in the C.C.F. party in these matters is that they take a jaundiced and morbidly suspicious view of everything that goes on in the United States, or at least in the United States official circles. As was pointed out this afternoon in what I thought was a very effective intervention by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Philpott), sometimes they mistake the clamour and confusion of voices in that vigorous, free democracy for the authentic expression of United States policy. I suggest, therefore, that occasionally they look a little more closely behind the headlines. I also suggest with respect that they look across-not across the border so often-but across the ocean to some of the real sources of danger to peace in the world today from communist imperialism.
The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and others have done just that. They have looked across the Pacific, and they have found many things which they did not like. I think we can all share to some extent their feeling of uneasiness. But I myself thought-and I hope I am not being unfair to him in saying it-that the statement of the leader of the C.C.F. party on this matter was not a fair presentation of the case. He attacked very vigorously indeed the Chinese government on Formosa and its leader Chiang Kai-shek and what he called his "bloodthirsty war lords". He did not see fit in this statement of his to make any such attack on the Chinese communist government in Peking. He emphasized the danger to peace from Chiang. But I want to point out-as has been pointed out by others, particularly I think by my friend the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. Fraser)-that it is not Chiang Kai-shek that we are concerned with on Formosa. It is peace and the defence of a people against communist aggression.
He also-and I take particular exception to this, Mr. Speaker-talked about not only danger from Chiang Kai-shek but danger from the United States. This is at page 2357 of Hansard. He emphasized the danger of being dragged into a war by the policies that are now being pursued by the secretary of state of the United States. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we are in much more danger of being dragged into war by policies that are pursued by the foreign minister in Peking and by the foreign minister in Moscow than we are by the policies pursued by the secretary of state of the United States.
No one wishes to adopt a provocative or bellicose attitude toward any government,

communist or otherwise. We are obliged to coexist with them in this world, whether we like it or not. But when the leader of a party in a debate of this kind will spend so much time attacking the policies of our friends, I think he might have spared a word or two for the dangers which might come to peace from the policies of those whom we have some reason to fear.
In his statement he outlined what his own policy-and I presume he was speaking for his group-towards China in the present situation would be. I have just jotted down the four points he made on that occasion. The first was that we should exile Chiang Kai-shek-and this suggestion has been repeated by other members of his party-presumably by force. 1 do not know who is anxious to take part in that particular expedition.
I have no brief for the government of Chiang Kai-shek. I am not going to object to the facts which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) stated about the atrocities that were committed in Formosa in 1947, just about ten years ago. It was a dark page in the history of that island and in the history of China. But I would ask him to go a little bit beyond 1947 and to read reports which have been appearing in the Manchester Guardian recently by their correspondent, a wise and unprejudiced observer, as to the improvement that has taken place in the government of Formosa in recent years. We do not in this government have to subscribe to the policies of Chiang Kai-shek; we also have a fairly open mind about the future of Formosa and indeed we have been criticized because we have not been more specific in our policy in this regard. But I certainly do not subscribe to any policy which would ask us to share in the ejection of Chiang Kai-shek and half a million Chinese nationalist soldiers from Formosa.
The second suggestion the leader of the C.C.F. made was that we should neutralize Formosa and place it under a trusteeship. I think there is a good deal to be said for that suggestion. That may prove to be the wisest solution to this extremely difficult problem. I think, however, it is premature to be dogmatic on the point or to make up our minds finally on anything like that at the present time. A great deal of discussion is now going on in diplomatic channels as to how this problem of Formosa can be solved in a way which will meet the wishes of the Formosan people and will take that island out of conflict. The solution may turn out to be the neutralization of Formosa and a trusteeship under the United Nations. That may turn out to be the wisest solution. But

I would point out that that particular solution, namely to put Formosa under United Nations trusteeship, is about the only single thing on which the Chinese communists and the Chinese national government agree. They are both violently opposed to it.
So far as Canadian responsibility is concerned over Formosa-I think this had better be repeated, and I will try to make it clear- we have no other commitment in regard to Formosa than that which arises from our membership in the United Nations. That was the position a year ago and that is the position today. We feel that the status of Formosa has not yet been finally determined but we also feel that the communist government in Peking should not use force to bring about that determination. This afternoon my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Winnipeg North.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -or rather the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) had something to say about a press report of a statement made or alleged to have been made in Australia by my friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). I have seen the report to which he has referred and we expect to have a more complete report shortly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you not cabled him already?


Lester Bowles Pearson: But even on the basis of the press report, my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in answer to a query at a press conference, merely stated that Canada was prepared to go full out for Formosa. To me, Mr. Speaker, that does not sound like an alarming statement and it certainly does not indicate any change whatsoever in Canadian policy in this matter. When he talks about going full out for Formosa, no doubt my colleague had in mind going full out to keep Formosa out of this Far Eastern conflict. In that sense I am sure he will have the support of all members in this house.
Then the third point made by the leader of the C.C.F. was that we should seat communist China at the present time in the United Nations, and he contrasted our policy or the Canadian government's policy in this regard unfavourably with that of the government of the United Kingdom. But I should like to point out that the government of the United Kingdom-which has, of course, recognized the government at Peking as the government
External Affairs
of China-has not at any time, so far as I am aware, supported the application of that government for membership in the United Nations.
Then the fourth point he made was that we should not intervene in the struggle between the two Chinese governments over the offshore islands. This afternoon the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), by a process of misinterpretation of remarks of mine which I find to be completely astonishing and almost unbelievable, somehow or other got the impression that our policy was to intervene in the struggle for the offshore islands, and he contrasted our policy with that of the United Kingdom. It has been said more than once-I have said it already tonight and I do not mind repeating it, if necessary-that it is our policy to stay out of this struggle for these offshore islands, and I think that other governments would be well advised to adopt the same policy. I am even bold enough to hope that that will be the policy which will be adopted in due course by all governments concerned.
Then the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, supported by some of his friends, criticized the United States because the line of defence which the United States administration was drawing was too far from North America. My friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), as he will remember, made quite a point of the same criticism. In that part of his speech the leader of the C.C.F. had this to say about the United States, as reported at page 2358 of Hansard:
Why not for a change-
And I think he was referring to me.
-be outspoken about United States policies that are equally imperialist in a sense, not in the same sense as the old imperialism used to be, but in the sense that there is an attempt to control a very large part of the world through bases and by display of arms.
He worried, as did some of his friends, that in that attempt to control, as he put it- and I do not think this is a fair description- the United States government had extended its front lines of defence across the Pacific ocean far away from the shores of continental United States.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) brought up the same point, but, instead of criticizing the United States for its far-away defence line, stated flatly that we should follow this example and our first line of defence should be Formosa, as it is for the United States. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think that this whole concept of geographical defence lines used for political purposes is misleading, and can even be dangerous. On the one hand, if Formosa is a vital first-line position for the United States or for any

External Affairs
other far-off country, then it could be argued with great validity that the offshore islands should be protected as vital to that vital first-line position. If that is so, then the coast of China is vital to the protection of the islands, and so on until every bit of territory you could secure becomes a first line.
I believe, however, it is equally dangerous to suggest that no country in its search for security has any right to establish a line of defence outside its own borders. Where was our first line of defence in 1939? Hitler said it was not in continental Europe, that we should be out of continental Europe. It had nothing to do with us because we were across the Atlantic and the British were across the channel. He said, "Clear out; this is not your line of defence". If our line of defence must be a geographical line close to our own territory, what are the British and ourselves doing in Europe today? It is because the first line of defence of Canada, in that sense, is in Europe that our men are there. Therefore, the argument does not seem to be impressive, one way or the other, as a geographical argument. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, surely that our own line of defence is attacked and our own security is jeopardized whenever a free people anywhere is the victim of aggression. In fact, our safety is endangered whenever there is any war any place. Our only safe line, therefore, is peace. Our only safe policy is to join with friendly states in maintaining that peace and preventing war by collective action.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra- I am sorry he is not in his seat tonight-asked me three other questions in addition to this question about our first line being in Formosa. One of them was, is it the belief of the Canadian government that the offshore islands, Quemoy and Matsu, should be handed over to red China in the hope of inducing the communists to stop fighting? I think I have answered that.
His second question was, does the government believe or does it not that in the Pacific communist aggression can be stopped by giving up territory? I think I have tried to answer that, Mr. Speaker.
Then he added, will the minister tell us whether the Canadian government believes that the British should give up Hong Kong? This does not seem to be a very relevant question in the context of this debate. Certainly, it is not relevant to the situation of the offshore islands or indeed in Formosa.
I know that in certain quarters it is being suggested that because the British are reluctant to help in the event of the invasion of the offshore islands, other people should be

reluctant to help the British maintain their position in Hong Kong. The offshore islands, of course, are part of China and are incidental to a war between two Chinese governments, so that is not the same thing either legally or politically as the position of Hong Kong, whatever one may think of it in other respects.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra came back to his favourite question. I was quite certain he would not make an intervention in this debate without tackling me once again with it. He asked me, will the Canadian government work for and advocate a protective grouping of the nations of the Pacific such as exist in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? I wish he were here so that I could give him exactly the same answer as I have given him six or seven times before. It would be along this line. There is no single arrangement in the Pacific at present which is along NATO lines. It has been considered that the arrangement should not be along NATO lines because of different conditions in the Pacific. The southeast Asia defence organization, which he had in mind, has no such commitment as NATO at all. The main reason why it has not got such a commitment is that the United States would not accept one in those circumstances.
I could tell him tonight if he were here, as I have told him before, that we are not therefore taking any initiative or accepting any invitation to extend our commitments in that area, that is in the Pacific, beyond those which we now have and which include our commitments under the charter of the United Nations. I do not think he had any right to go on to say, as he did, that because we would not extend our commitment in this way we were not alert to things happening in the Pacific and we were more interested in Europe. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that what has happened in Korea, and what is now happening in Indo-China, is sufficient evidence that we have and retain a very genuine interest in what goes on in the Pacific and Asian areas.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would return almost to where I began. The subject which has loomed so large throughout this debate has been our relations with the United States and our preoccupation with those relations. This preoccupation, indeed this anxiety, is understandable over our relations economic, our relations political and our relations strategic. I suggest that that relationship, vitally important as it must be to us and as it has been in the past, will be even more so in the future. A relationship to be successful on both sides must be based on mutual respect, a freedom to hold and to express our

own views. I assure my hon. friends who have been criticizing the government because we have not, as they have said, had enough courage to express those views, that they do not feel any more strongly about that than we do. However, we in the government happen at this time to have some responsibility for the conduct of international relations. It is not always advisable in the conduct of diplomacy and international affairs, even with our best friends, to shout from the housetop and throw our weight about, in order to impress our own people with the fact that we are very independent.
This relationship must also be based on recognition of the fact that if our coalition, which is now headed by the United States, breaks up, then indeed there will be a grave danger to peace and security. I suggest, therefore, that while we must be independent and speak up when it is necessary to do so, we must be sure we do nothing avoidable by our words and by our deeds to further that wrong end of disunity and division. When we do disagree with the United States we must be sure that that disagreement is not based on a narrow conception of our national interest, but is a disagreement which goes to the very basis of the coalition policy and which we maintain on the highest principles of peace and international security.
It is quite true that there are strains and stresses on the coalition at the present time. There has never been a coalition, even in wartime, which was easy to manage. In peacetime, they are not very often necessary. But in a period such as we have at present, between peace and war, a coalition is not only desperately required, but it is very difficult indeed to manage. So there are stresses and strains now pressing against it, but we will be able to weather them. It is quite true that the greatest of these at the present time is in the Far East. I have not come across a better short expression of the nature and the importance of these Far Eastern strains than I found in a paragraph in the April 9 edition of the Economist. It reads as follows:
The danger of the next few months is that, confronted by the threat of renewed fighting off the China coast, many otherwise sensible people in Britain-
And the writer could have added Canada, -will say that they would rather have peace than the American alliance. Nothing, in fact, could be sillier, for there is no such choice. It is still possible to have both peace and the alliance. It is certainly not possible to have peace for long without it.
We wish to have in this parliament and in this country both peace and the alliance- not merely the American alliance but an
21, 1955
Historic Sites and Monuments Act alliance for friendly co-operation with all peace-loving free countries of the world.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, March 31, consideration in committee of Bill No. 182, to amend the Historic Sites and Monuments	Act-Mr.	Lesage-Mr.	Robinson
(Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-"Historic place".
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks about these words that have been added concerning age and architectural design. I do not mean that they should not have been added, but I do say that difficulties could arise in time.
First, I believe there might be some danger of stressing the architectural factor of these sites, rather than their age. Secondly, I think we should be careful to watch the interpretation of the word "age", because so far as different areas in Canada are concerned, it is a purely relative term. For example in the maritime provinces, one of the older areas, we have a great many historic sites which are fast reaching a state of destruction and falling into misuse. Action must be taken quickly if they are to be saved.
There is a tendency nowadays to sec-tionalize procedure in respect of the sites. For example, it may be suggested that there would be one for Ontario, one for Quebec, one for British Columbia and one for New Brunswick. I suggest we should move quickly in respect of those sites of great age in the older sections of Canada, because they will not remain there long. It is easy enough to mark a tablet or a cairn, but we must take action quickly in respect of the sites.
For example in Saint John, the loyalist city, I believe there are only two of the old loyalist buildings left, and they will not remain much longer. If an effort is made to sectionalize and to group everything, we will miss out in the preservation of these buildings.
A Saint John paper of yesterday proves my point perhaps better than I could prove it in argument this evening. The article to which I shall refer concerns a visitor to our city who, upon arrival by aeroplane, got into an argument with a stranger. This visitor is quoted as saying:
"I couldn't mind my own business", she conceded with a laugh. "I told him this was the oldest incorporated city in Canada, where people knew now to live graciously. I told him there were

Historic Sites and Monuments Act
culture and graciousness here 200 years ago, when people were eating beans in what is Ottawa today."
This statement of appreciation of that old culture was made by Mayor Charlotte Whitton, a very well known educator and historian in this area. And so I just leave with hon. members the thought that, in the matter of age, we must move fast in respect of some of these sites in the older areas of Canada.


George Clyde Nowlan: Apropos of what has been said by the hon. member for Saint John-Albert, I believe the minister has a problem on his hands in dealing with the definition of what is to be construed as of national historic interest. The hon. member has referred to certain buildings formerly occupied by loyalists in the city of Saint John, buildings which undoubtedly should be preserved.
Members from other provinces could refer to other matters of local, and sometimes of provincial and of national interest. I believe there must be co-operation between the national historic sites and monuments board and provincial governments and authorities so that buildings and sites of provincial interest will be maintained by provincial authorities and those of national interest maintained by the national board.
For instance in Nova Scotia the provincial government has bought certain buildings which might be considered to be of national importance, but which most certainly have great provincial significance. I should like to see worked out some modus vivendi by which this could be done, and I would hope the minister would encourage the board along these lines. I would hope that it would work in closer co-operation with the various provincial governments. Perhaps a line could be drawn-it might be a tenuous one- between provincial matters on the one hand and federal on the other so that we would achieve the preservation of those sites which should be preserved, for the perpetuation of historic interest.
Also I believe the minister might ask the board to act as advisers to various departments of government, particularly the Post Office Department, to see that historic stamps are issued at proper times, and to act as custodian and adviser in respect of the preservation of these historic landmarks for which the minister's department is responsible.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

On clause 3-Living and travelling expenses of appointed members.
George Clyde Nowlan: Do I understand that the sum of $75 is the total amount to be paid out in a year for clerical and stenographic assistance to the chairman of the board and $30 per year to the members? It seems to me there should be much more money than that available for secretarial assistance, or the board will not be able to do the work which I would hope it would do.


Jean Lesage: Previously members of the board had no allowance for clerical assistance, and they suggested that $30 would be acceptable.


George Clyde Nowlan: Is there any amount available, other than the sum mentioned in this clause? And just to anticipate the minister's answer, I understood that it was to be the policy of the department that a permanent official from that department would act as secretary. That being so, I would assume that secretarial expenses would be borne by the department rather than by the board as such.
I would urge that if there is to be only $75 for the chairman and $30 for each member to carry on the secretarial work of the board, then the House of Commons should not have spent the time it has spent on this measure, because the board will not be able to do the work it should do.


Jean Lesage: The secretary of the board is an employee of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and most of the secretarial work is done in the department for the board. However, the members of the board have to do some work when they are in their respective provinces, and the amounts which are proposed in this clause are to cover the clerical expenditures that they have to meet when they are outside of Ottawa.


George Clyde Nowlan: The general expenditures of the board will be borne by the minister's department. Do I understand that?


Jean Lesage: Yes. The secretarial work is done in the department.


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

Jean Lesage: the second reading of Bill No. 261, to amend the

National Parks Act and to establish a national park in the province of Newfoundland.
He said: Mr. Speaker, His Excellency the Governor General, having been made acquainted with the purport of this bill, has given consent so far as Her Majesty's property rights are affected and the house may do therein as they shall see fit. I gave fairly full explanations of this bill at the resolution stage. I shall be ready in committee to discuss the various clauses, which would permit of a more orderly discussion because the various amendments differ widely one from the other.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
On clause 1-Use of water.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: It seems to me that this bill should be set over until another day because it certainly was not indicated to us that it was to be proceeded with tonight.


Jean Lesage: Yes, last night.
National Parks Act


Charles Edward Johnston: I did not so
understand.


Jean Lesage: It was in the order of business mentioned by the leader of the house last night.


Charles Edward Johnston: I would suggest that Mr. Chairman call it ten o'clock. It is two minutes to ten.


Jean Lesage: It is five minutes to ten.


Charles Edward Johnston: It would be more appropriate if we had a full discussion of it on another day. Would that be agreeable to the minister? Will you call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


William Alfred Robinson: Shall I rise and report progress, and request leave to sit again?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lesage the house adjourned at 9.57 p.m.
3069

Friday, April 22, 1955