1955-03-24

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Government House, Ottawa, 23rd March, 1955.
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber on Thursday, the 24th March, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. F. Delaute,
Secretary to the Governor General (Administrative)



ATOMIC ENERGY


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, on February 17, 1953, in the course of a brief report which I gave the house on the atomic energy program, I stated that the time had come to undertake the development of atomic power in this country. I stated further that since the production of power is the concern of the various commissions and power companies which distribute power in Canada, it seemed desirable that arrangements should be made whereby the power producers might participate in the future development work.
Shortly after this announcement the HydroElectric Power Commission of Ontario indicated its interest in participating in the program, and discussions began as to how this might be carried out most effectively. These discussions resulted in a decision to undertake a feasibility study which would have as its objective the determination of an outline specification for a power reactor.
The arrangement, which was announced on November 12, 1953, provided that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited would make available technical information and experimental facilities, and that Ontario hydro would supply the personnel for the study. Ontario hydro
also stated its intention to expend on the study up to $100,000 a year over a two-year period. Subsequently several other utilities contributed personnel to the study group.
During the debate on the amendments to the Atomic Energy Control Act last June I advised the house that it had been decided to set up an advisory committee on atomic power, consisting of representatives of all the power commissions and power companies in Canada. The purpose of the committee was to provide a medium whereby power producers in all parts of Canada might be kept fully informed of developments in the atomic power field. The first meeting of the committee was held at Chalk River in July, at which time the power reactor program was described in detail. It was agreed that the committee would meet annually, and more frequently should the members of the committee desire.
Late in 1954 the feasibility study had advanced to the point where it was possible to consider the next step, the design, engineering and construction of a demonstration power reactor. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has now recommended that such a reactor should be built, and the government has accepted this recommendation. The reactor will be designed to produce 20,000 kilowatts electric. Its nuclear specifications will be based, in the main, on the heavy water technology which has been developed at Chalk River in connection with the operation of the NRX reactor. While the reactor is not expected to produce power at costs competitive with hydro plants or large thermal stations, it will provide the kind of operating and cost experience which will make possible a scale-up to a large and economic power reactor.
Bearing in mind that atomic power will be used by the utilities, and that the manufacturing industry will be responsible for producing the equipment and components for power reactors, it seemed desirable that arrangements should be made for the participation in the project of a utility and further, that the detailed design, engineering and construction of the reactor should be contracted to a manufacturer.
Two utilities, the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and the Nova Scotia Light and Power Company Limited, have made specific proposals for participation in

Atomic Energy
the project; and two utilities, the Nova Scotia power commission and the New Brunswick power commission, have indicated some interest. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has now recommended that the proposal of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario be accepted, and the government has approved this recommendation.
The arrangement will provide that Atomic Energy of Canada Limited will assume responsibility for the specifications and the cost of the reactor, and that the Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario will assume responsibility for the specifications and cost of the conventional part of the plant, including the cost of the building to house the entire plant and the cost of its site. Ontario hydro will operate the plant as a part of its power system and for that purpose will purchase steam from Atomic Energy of Canada Limited at a price equivalent to the cost of steam produced in the emergency plant erected at Scarborough, Ontario, some years ago.
The decision to accept the proposal of Ontario hydro is based on several factors. First, as the reactor is to be used for demonstration purposes it is essential that it be operated in a power system which is sufficiently large to cope with interrupted operation or operation at a low load factor. Second, it is considered desirable that the first power reactor should be located within easy access of Chalk River, since Chalk River will be responsible for nuclear performance. Third, the financial arrangements provide that both parties will accept full responsibility for the cost of their respective portions of the project, together with any loss that may be incurred as the result of failure in operation or interrupted operation. This sharing of costs and risk is essential in an experimental project of this kind. Since Ontario hydro has made the major contribution to the feasibility study on which the specifications of the reactor will be based, the continuing partnership will be of great mutual advantage.
While the reactor will be located in Ontario, it will be the policy to provide full information to the members of the advisory committee with regard to its design and operation. In this way we will ensure that all Canadian power producers will be in a position to evaluate its economic significance in terms of their respective systems.
Last December Atomic Energy of Canada Limited invited proposals for the design and construction of the reactor from a number of companies which were considered to have the design, engineering and manufacturing resources needed for an undertaking of this kind. These companies were advised that 
they would be expected to make some financial contribution to the project. After a careful assessment of these two factors -design, engineering and manufacturing resources and the amount of the financial contribution-Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has recommended that the contract be awarded to the Canadian General Electric Company Limited.
It is intended that detailed design will get under way immediately, with a view to the completion of construction in mid-1958.
Further details with regard to the program will be submitted to the parliamentary committee on research.


Mr. Green:: Were power commissions and companies in all the provinces given the opportunity to participate in these developments?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is yes. All the power companies were invited to be represented on the advisory committee, and I think that all but one or two are so represented. A number of power companies, although they are not assuming financial responsibility for this first operation, have been contributing men to the feasibility studies. I might say that the British Columbia Electric Company, in which my hon. friend is interested, has contributed manpower to the study.


Howard Charles Green: I had in mind, for example, the British Columbia power commission, which is a government commission. Has it also been given the opportunity to participate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: It was given the opportunity, but so far as I know it has not appointed a man to the commission. However, the British Columbia Electric Company has supplied manpower.


Howard Charles Green: Is it the intention of the government to set up the special committee on atomic energy and research shortly?
Mr., Howe (Port Arthur): Yes, that is the intention of the government. We have simply been waiting until current debates die down a bit and we could get a place in the program of the house.


Mr. Brooks:: Has the minister an estimate of the cost which would be paid by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes. I think the cost of the project is between $13 and $15 million, and the contribution of the Ontario hydro to the part to be built by them is between $3 and $5 million. There is also a sizeable contribution by the contractor for his part in the program.


Mr. Gillis:: What were the factors that militated against the proposal of the Nova Scotia power commission?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The difficulty there was that the unit covered by the proposal was a unit immediately needed for the Nova Scotia system. We could not guarantee the time of completion or the reliability of the project, since this is the first one to be built. We were asked to indemnify the Nova Scotia utility against any lack of efficiency and against damage resulting from delayed completion and also damage resulting from low load factor; whereas in the Ontario project, a proposal similar in character, the Ontario hydro assumes all the risk for the factors I have just mentioned.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: Was the Calgary Power Company asked to participate?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I think the Calgary Power Company has been participating. The president of the Calgary Power Company is a member of the executive committee in charge of the study, and I believe that company has supplied manpower.


Mr. Robinson (Bruce):: What factors entered into the choice of the permanent location of the unit?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understand that the exact location has not been finally chosen. The decision will be made jointly by the Ontario Hydro-Electric Power Commission, which will operate the unit, and Atomic Energy of Canada. The decision will be based on the convenience of both.


Mr. Mclvor:: Has any other country anything like this, or is it the case of Canada again being first?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The United States has undertaken several developments in this field, none of which is anywhere near completion, and the United Kingdom is also developing in the same field.


Mr. MacLean:: Are the results of the experimental work done in the United Kingdom available to the advisory committee in Canada?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The answer is yes.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Questions


Mr. Balcom:: How many immigrants entered Canada during 1954, from what countries and how many from each country?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Immigration to Canada by Country of Last Permanent Residence Calendar Year 1954
Africa	
Australia	
Austria	
Belgium	
British West Indies Central America ..
Ceylon	
China	
Czechoslovakia ...
Denmark	
Finland	
France	
Germany	
Greece	
Hong Kong	
Hungary	
India	
Ireland	
Israel	
Italy	
Japan	
Malta	
Mexico	
Netherlands, The ..
New Zealand	
Norway	
Pakistan	
Poland	
Portugal	
South America ....
Spain	
Sweden	
Switzerland	
Syria	
Turkey	
United Kingdom . ..
United States ....
Yugoslavia	
Other Asian	
Other European ... Others	
1,365
5,967
2,177
14
1,754
1,395
3,672
28,479
2,819
42
2,059
23,780
91 892
16,182
1,040
45
1,133
627
1,235
19
43,381
10,131
178
795
Total
154,227
Bill No. 280, to incorporate Victoria Insur- Source: Department of Citizenship and ance Company of Canada.-Mr. Hunter.	Immigration.
50433-148J
2332	HOUSE OF
Questions


C.N.R. ATLANTIC REGION- LOCOMOTIVES
Mr. Balcom:: 1.	(A) In the Atlantic region (including Newfoundland), (i) at the end of 1950; (ii) at the end of 1954, what were the number of (a) steam locomotives in service; (b) road steam engines according to class and/or tractive power; (c) switchers?
(B) In the Atlantic region (excluding Newfoundland) , (i) at the end of 1950; (ii) at the end of 1954, how many (a) steam locomotives; (b) road steam engines; (c) switchers, were on loan or lease from other regions, including Grand Trunk Western?
2.	In the Atlantic region (including Newfoundland) at the end of (i) 1950; (ii) 1954, what were the number of (a) diesels directly allocated to this region; (b) road units according to class and/or tractive power; (c) switchers?
1.	(A) Atlantic Region (Including Newfoundland)
Steam Locomotives
Tractive Effort	Class	Road Steam	Switch. Steam	Total-	-SteamDec. 31, 1950	Dec. 31, 1954	Dec. 31, 1950	Dec. 31, 1954	Dec. 31, 1950	Dec. 31, 195423 per cent min.	28 per cent max.	Mogul	4	_	4	21	"	"	32	tt it	10-wheeler	71	28	-	-	71	2830	"	"	35	it a	Consolidation-	under 40 per cent..	11	-	-	-	11	-40	it	"	50	it tt	40 per cent and over.	39	32	-	-	39	3252	tt	60	it tt	Mikado	121	128	-	-	121	12829	"	"	44	tt tt	Pacific	45	39	-	-	45	3950	it	"	52	tt tt	Mountain	7	6	-	-	7	652	it	"	59	tt tt	Northern	54	43	-	-	54	4328	It	it	39	tt tt	0-6-0 Switcher	-	-	29	23	29	2345	tt	tt	55	tt tt	0-8-0 Switcher	-	-	13	16	13	1640	"	it	45	tt tt	Consol Switcher	-	-	28	16	28	16Mogul Switcher	-	-	2	-	2	-352	276	72	55	424	331
(B) There is no loaning or leasing of equipment from other regions to the Atlantic region, or vice versa. Power is not permanently assigned to a region but moves from region to region as required by traffic.

3.	(A) In the Atlantic region (excluding Newfoundland), for, (i) 1950; (ii) 1954, what number of steam locomotives were shipped for No. 3 general repairs at (a) Moncton shops; (b) elsewhere?
(B) In the Atlantic region (including Newfoundland), what number of steam locomotives were retired from service in (i) 1950; (ii) 1954?
4.	What were the total number of locomotives
available for service in the Atlantic region (including Newfoundland), in (i)	1950; (ii) 1954,	(a)
steam; (b) diesel?
5.	How many additional diesel units are planned for the Atlantic region (including Newfoundland) in 1955, (a) road units; (b) switchers?
6.	How many steam locomotives are scheduled to be retired in 1955?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: The Canadian National Railways advise as follows: -
2. Atlantic Region (Including Newfoundland)
Diesel Locomotives			
		Dec. 31,	Dec. 31,
Tractive Effort	Class	1950	195446 per cent	
Road-freight	
-	4013 per cent min.-46 per cent max	
Road-switcher	
20	6613 per cent min.-36 per cent max	
Switcher	
14	3434	140

Questions
3.	(A) Atlantic Region (Excluding Newfoundland)
Year	Year
1950	1954
(a) Number of steam locomotives sent to Moncton shops for No. 3 repairs... .	60	M(b) Elsewhere: Riviere du Loup	25	Ni
In 1954 five engines were transferred to the Central region for use in that territory. These engines were given rvo. 4 general repairs before being put into service. Five other engines were transferred and given lighter repairs before going into service in the Central region (see also answer to No. 1(B)).
(B) Atlantic Region (Including Newfoundland)		
		
	Year	Year
	1950	1954
Number of steam locomotives retired from service
51
4.	Atlantic Region (Including Newfoundland)
Total number available for service
Total	
Less: Removed from service Stored unserviceable...
Waiting repairs	
Under repairs	
Number available	
1950	1954
Steam	Diesel	Steam	Diesel424	34	331	1407 26	-	6 94	-28	-	12	1363	34	219	139
5.
	Road	Switcher
Diesel units planned for Atlantic region-1955			3
6. Steam locomotives scheduled to be retired in 1955-72.


DISABLED PERSONS ACT
Mr. Fairey:: 1.	Has the minister of health and welfare for British Columbia protested the regulations passed under the provisions of the Disabled Persons Act?
2.	If so, to whom has the minister directed such protests?
3.	What was the nature of the protests?


Mr. Roberlson:: 1, 2, and 3. There is no record of any correspondence having been received from the minister of health and welfare or any other member or official of the government of British Columbia, containing any comment, criticism or complaint about the
regulations passed under the Disabled Persons Act. There is no record of any letter having been received from the minister of health and welfare containing any reference whatsoever to the said regulations, either before or after they had been approved.
The minister of health and welfare for British Columbia attended a conference of provincial ministers and officials, called by the federal government in January, 1954, to discuss the main outlines of the proposed federal disability allowances legislation. The minutes of this meeting reveal only two comments offered by the minister of health

Questions
and welfare for British Columbia-neither of them critical of any feature of either the proposed legislation or the regulations.
The minister of health and welfare for British Columbia was invited in September, 1954, to attend a conference called for the purpose of formulating, jointly with the federal and other provincial governments, the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act. The minister did not attend this conference, but was represented by two senior officials of the British Columbia department of health and welfare. The minutes of this meeting contain no reference to any remarks made by the said British Columbia officials which could under any circumstances be interpreted as a protest against the regulations. The only important comment of substance offered by the British Columbia representatives referred to that part of the disability definition which has to do with "permanency". In the opinion of the British Columbia authorities a stated number of years was preferable as the criterion of permanency to the wording contained in the regulation "to which the concept of cure cannot be applied". Apart from this suggestion, not a single critical comment on the regulations has been offered to federal authorities by the British Columbia authorities at any time from January, 1954, when the question was first discussed to the present.
MARITIME COAL-SUBVENTIONS ON WESTERN [DOT]	MOVEMENT


Mr. Buchanan:: 1.	What assistance, through federal subventions, has been given to the movement of coal from the maritimes westward to other provinces in the following fiscal years: 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953 and 1954?
2.	What is the breakdown of amounts on shipments from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for each of the above years?
3.	Has any change in policy or the payment of these subventions taken place during the above years? If so, when and in what form?
4.	Are figures available to show coal shipments from the Cape Breton area? If so, what quantities, and what is the amount of subventions in each of the above years?


Mr. Prudham:: 1.	The following assistance, through federal subventions, has been given to the movement of coal from the maritimes westward to other provinces in the undernoted fiscal years: 1949-50, $2,657,545; 1950-51, $1,399,030; 195152, $3,260,050; 1952-53, $4,777,335; 1953-54, $7,214,708.
2.	The breakdown of amounts on shipments from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick for

each of the above years is as follows: Nova Scotia coal:	1949-50,	$2,653,604;	1950-51,$1,397,041;	1951-52,	$3,257,627;	1952-53,$4,773,616; 1953-54, $7,127,469. New Brunswick coal: 1949-50, $3,941; 1950-51, $1,989; 1951-52,	$2,423;	1952-53,	$3,719;	1953-54,

3.	Policy generally has remained that of providing transportation assistance to enable the Canadian coals to meet the competition from imported coals in designated market areas. Consistent with this policy subventions during the years concerned have been increased and extended. The changes in payment have been effected by the relevant orders in council enacted from time to time during the period in question and these changes have been recorded in the annual reports of the dominion coal board.
4.	Figures are available showing coal shipments under subvention from Cape Breton, but by calendar year only. These figures are given below for the years concerned.
Tonnages and Costs of Cape Breton Coal Shipped Under Subvention
Net Tons	Amount
1950	
1,093,781	$ 929,6251951	
2,220,506	3,002,6851952	
1,875,339	5,157,0031953	
1,809,247	5,960,7641954	
2,399,673	8,232,932


ST. JAMES, MAN., STORM SEWER
Mr. Churchill:: 1.	Is a storm sewer to be constructed from the Royal Canadian Air Force airfield in St. James to the Assiniboine river? If so, when and of what
type?	,
2.	What route will the proposed storm sewer follow through the municipality of St. James?
3.	What is the estimated cost and what is the financial obligation, if any, of the municipality?
4.	Has agreement been reached with the municipality as to the type of storm sewer?


Mr. Blancheiie:: 1.	Yes. It is expected that construction will begin in the near future and that the sewer will probably be of the open cut type.
2.	The exact route is still under consideration.
3.	It is estimated that the cost of constructing the sewer will be epproximately $350,000. The municipality has no financial obligation in connection with this project.
4.	An agreement was reached with the municipality for the point construction of a storm sewer to serve both the needs of the municipality and the R.C.A.F. station; however, the municipality has since advised that it wishes to withdraw from the agreement.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Castleden:: 
Mr. Dickey:: Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT


Mr. Palleil:: 1.	How many parcels of land are affected by the Department of Transport expropriation plan registered in the registry office of the county of Peel on February 12, 1954, as No. 79365?
2.	How many parcels of land so expropriated have been paid for?
3.	For how many parcels of land has the amount of compensation (a) been determined; (b) not yet been determined; (c) been determined but not yet paid?
4.	Where the land expropriated was farm land, what was the average price per acre?
5.	Where parcels of land were lots on subdivisions, what was the average price per foot frontage?
6.	What was the basis for determining the value of buildings?
7.	Who are the property evaluators acting on behalf of the Department of Transport in this instance?
8.	What experience have they had in doing evaluations?



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of recent reports that legislation is being considered in the United States to provide for an increase in tariffs on lead and zinc does the government intend to make a protest in respect to this proposal?


Clarence Decatur Howe: At the last session of congress somewhat similar proposals were introduced, and at that time the government made representations. I think it probable that the government will make representations on this occasion.
24,	1955	2335
Inquiries of the Ministry BRIDGES



ALLUMETTE ISLAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Proudfoot (Poniiac-Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if the governments of Ontario and Quebec have signed the final agreements to build the Allumette bridge and, if so, when is work likely to start?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. The answer to the first part of his question is yes, the governments of Ontario and Quebec have now joined with us in signing an agreement for the construction and subsequent maintenance of the proposed interprovincial bridge across the Ottawa river at Allumette island. Under the arrangement the federal Department of Public Works is preparing the plans for all the bridges involved and each government is to build its appropriate share. The federal government will build the centre span.
The plans for the Ontario portion were forwarded to the government of Ontario on March 11, 1955. They are being reviewed preliminary to tender call which should be ready early in April. The plans for the Quebec portion were forwarded to the government of Quebec on March 15, 1955, and it is anticipated that tenders will be called in the near future.
The federal Department of Public Works anticipates having the plans and specifications for the centre span completed and tenders invited by the latter part of May of this year.



PRAIRIE FARM ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of complaints made with respect to Prairie Farm Assistance Act payments, can the minister give assurance that a farmer wishing a recheck may have the same on application to the P.F.A.A. office?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes. The general practice is that a municipality makes application for payments in townships within the municipality. A check is then made from the office at Regina and a decision rendered as to whether payment is to be made. After

Atomic Energy
that announcement comes out appeals may be made, and are sometimes made on behalf of a whole township or on behalf of individuals. The practice is to check these from Regina. Anyone may apply to the Regina office, and unless there have been rechecks made before-and every complaint is already fairly well covered-further checks will be made.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sluari S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) asked me the following question:
Has the government received notice that the Chaput case will be heard at the next session of the supreme court? If so, does the federal government intend to intervene in this case as it did in the Alberta press act case to defend the basic and fundamental right of Canadian citizenship to enjoy freedom of worship, assembly, speech and person?
I replied yesterday as follows:
We are aware that the Chaput case will be heard at the next sitting of the Supreme Court of Canada. But since my hon. friend has given me no notice of his question, and I am under the impression that in the Chaput case we have received a notice from the supreme court itself, I should like to make a statement tomorrow covering this point.
Unlike the Alberta press case to which the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar referred in the question he asked me yesterday, the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada" from the judgment of the Quebec court of queen's bench in the case of Chaput v. Romain, et al. arises out of private litigation in which the appellant sued the respondents for damages.
In this Supreme Court of Canada appeal the Attorney General of Canada has been served with a notice, given to the attorneys general of Canada and the provinces pursuant to a direction of the court, that the appellant will contend before the Supreme Court of Canada:
-that the Constables Appointment Act (RSQ 1941 c. 48) and the Provincial Police Act (RSQ 1941 c. 47) and all statutes of the province of Quebec that purport to authorize this action on the part of the respondent police officers are illegal, ultra vires, and unconstitutional, both on their face and as construed and applied as being outside the powers vested in the province by the British North America Act and contrary to "An Act Respecting Rectories" (S.C. 1852 c. 175). That the said police powers, on their face and as construed and applied, are an unconstitutional invasion of freedom of worship, freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
The Attorney General of Canada, pursuant to this notice, intends to be represented by

counsel upon the argument of the appeal and to present such submissions as counsel may advise.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion gives us an opportunity each year to review some of the important international developments which have taken place, and more particularly Canada's relationship to those developments.
Altough I may be required to speak at some length, I doubt whether I shall be able to cover all the points which will be in the minds of hon. members; but if matters arise during the course of the discussion on which I have not touched in my review I shall of course be glad to do my best to deal with them when I wind up the debate. Even a partial summary of these developments will indicate-this will be no surprise to the house -that Canada's international responsibilities have increased, are increasing, and with international conditions as they are, are not likely to diminish in the foreseeable future.
There are a number of reasons for this trend. One of them, of course, is the growing interdependence of all peoples and this, among other things, is the direct result of modern technical and scientific developments, especially in communications, which show no sign of slowing down. These developments certainly increase man's mastery over nature, and could make possible greater material welfare than he has ever dreamed of; but they also increase and make even more complicated relationships between nations.
Another factor, of course, bearing on our increased responsibility has been the striking growth of our country in strength and in authority. This has made possible an increase in the influence which Canada can exert on the course of international affairs. That influence in this day of super powers is not, or is very rarely, decisive. It may not always be very important; but a country like Canada with a special and close relationship to London and to Washington has unique opportunities through normal diplomatic and governmental contacts and in other ways to exert on occasion a special influence on those

capitals and thereby influence the course of events, and I hope in the right direction.
Our effectiveness in this regard, however, will depend not only on the way we accept and discharge our own international responsibilities but also on the reputation that we acquire and maintain for sound and objective judgment and action. In this respect we are, I think, very fortunate in having a good deal of credit on which to draw for use with both the United States and the United Kingdom governments and we should, of course, try not to dissipate it. A quick way to do that would be to issue bad cheques on that credit; and that applies to other countries, of course, in their relations with us.
These long term trends are continuing to emphasize the growing responsibility of Canada and other governments in the field of international relations, and in particular the responsibilities within our own governmental framework of the Department of External Affairs. In conditions of tension and cold war a country's foreign service is unquestionably a part of its first line of defence.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say something about the international situation within which the government's external policy has to operate. A few weeks ago, in connection with the debate on the accession of the Federal Republic of Germany to NATO, the house had a full discussion of the situation in Europe, which I take it need not be repeated on this occasion. I might say, however, that since that time the process of ratification of the Paris agreements has gone ahead and at the present time parliamentary action has been completed in respect of that ratification by the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Norway, Iceland, Portugal, Greece, Turkey, Italy and Canada.
The final stage-I devoutly hope it will be the final stage-in parliamentary consideration of this matter in Paris is taking place today and tomorrow. I think that action will be taken within the next day or so by the French government, with similar action to be taken by a few other governments, which would then make possible the restoration of freedom and sovereignty for the Federal Republic of Germany and the accession of that government to the Atlantic community.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that on this particular occasion hon. members would wish me to concentrate on the Far East, where after all the majority of mankind live and which at this moment provides more than one area of tension.
I believe it is advisable to examine these tensions against the proper background of
External Affairs
political and economic movement. I suppose from the long term point of view the most significant of all political developments of the past decade, or indeed possibly the past quarter century, has been the national awakening of the hundreds of millions in those nations and their insistent demand for economic, social and political progress for a better life.
The emergence of Asian independent states in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma, Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Korea, Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia may well have the greatest possible significance to the future of humanity. So, too, but in a different way, may the development of a strong, centralized, despotic, communistic regime on the mainland of China. Canada has welcomed the growth of national freedom and democracy among the peoples of Asia, but the spread of communism in China and indeed in other parts of Asia and the actions of the communist rulers of the Peking regime that has now secured effective control of the Chinese mainland have caused deep and understandable anxiety in our own country and indeed in the whole of the non-communist world. At three points on the periphery of China there has been armed conflict in recent years, and in each case this has threatened the peace of the world. These three points are, of course, Indo-China, Korea and Formosa. I shall have something to say about each of these areas in a few minutes, but first I think it is important to put all of this in the framework of the growth of communism in Asia; which has ambitions to control and exploit the Asian peoples through a strong and autocratic communistic government in Peking. This problem of communism in Asia is certainly not a simple one, and there are no simple solutions for it. It will not be solved by merely denouncing it, and certainly not by ignoring it. It is more important to try and understand its origins and purposes and to discover the sources of its support.
The communist movement in Asia is not simply a conspiracy of evil and alien forces seeking power and domination; unfortunately it is more than that. It has secured too many followers who see in it, at least until they have acquired some experience of its workings in government, a means of improving the welfare and happiness of their own people and ensuring their freedom from western pressure and control. Therefore 1 feel we shall not make much appeal to the peoples of Asia unless we make clear to them that while we denounce communistic doctrines and methods we wholeheartedly support the ideals of these people for liberation from hunger, misery and outside domination.

External Affairs
To understand the people of Asia and to live in terms of friendship with them requires, of course, on our part and on the part of western peoples both patience and tolerance. It requires also an effort of imagination. We have to try to see ourselves as the Asians see us. It is difficult for us, for example, to understand the intense preoccupation of the people and the new leaders of free Asia with the question of colonialism and imperialism, because we know that the former imperial powers have already withdrawn or are not in a position to dominate, even if they would. The governments and peoples of those same erstwhile imperial powers are among our closest friends in the world and we see in them people who, far from being enemies of freedom, nourish it in Asia itself as elsewhere, and are now able and willing to assist new and unsteady regimes to master their political and economic problems.
From the facts of their own history Canadians should understand, however, the viewpoint of Asians that self-government is more important even than good government. We should understand also the mistrust and suspicions of those who for years have felt themselves-possibly not at all times justifiably-to be the victims of prejudice and at times of racial arrogance. If we remember these things now, we may be able better to understand why so many Asians fail to see as clearly as we do the gulf which divides communism from democracy, and why they are so reluctant to join our side without reservations.
Along with this feeling of nationalism and anti-colonialism which has contributed to the strength of communism in Asia, increasing attention is being paid now to the 'social and economic sources of communism. We have talked about this matter more than once in this house. It is, of course, an important aspect of the problem. No one would deny that hunger entices men to communism. The false promises of plenty are always an appealing argument to the destitute. We in the west have shown our awareness of this argument by various programs of economic and technical assistance. This assistance should help to reduce the impulse toward communism by raising the standard of living, and by proving that it is possible to do it without the loss of political freedom and within a democratic system.
But, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we should not forget that these social and economic aspects are only one element of this complex problem. I think there is a danger of oversimplifying the issues in Asia in these terms. Confronted by the appalling defence and political problems involved in the

emergence of a free Asia, it is easy to lapse into the comfortable belief that we can save Asia-and that is how it is often put-with economic aid alone; that we can buy off communism and purchase peace for ourselves merely by stepping up our economic assistance.
That, as I see it, is unhappily nothing but a comforting illusion; and in saying that I do not minimize the importance of such economic assistance. What we are seeking to do, of course, in the western world is help the Asian people to help themselves. That continent, I make bold to say, will not be saved or even, in the long run, helped by aimless assistance or by making political support a condition for such assistance, or by westerners attempting to assume the direction of political and economic forces in these Asian states, however benevolent their intentions. The danger to Asia comes from weaknesses which will not be removed merely by dumping in millions and millions of dollar or sterling aid for projects not carefully enough planned.
The west can help in this way, of course; but the west can help even more by cooperating in a partnership of mutual understanding, respect and support with genuine leaders of the Asian peoples. Democracy- and it does not necessarily need to be our type of parliamentary democracy-can be established in those areas only by the efforts of the people themselves. Therefore, as I see it, the main problem at this time for Asians is to organize, as some Asian states have done, governments and administrations which are strong enough, free enough and incorruptible enough to make use of western assistance and support in helping to establish the conditions of lav/ and order, freedom and prosperity which alone can counter the appeal of communism.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any place where a more significant effort is being made to work out these problems with all their ramifications along all the sectors of this front than in Indo-China. I should therefore like to say a few words about the situation there, more particularly because of our participation, with India and Poland, in the supervision of the cease-fire settlements in Indo-China.
The settlement reached at Geneva last July comprised cease-fire agreements for Viet Nam, Laos and Cambodia. These provided for the establishment of three separate international supervisory commissions, each made up of representatives of India, Poland and Canada, and each charged with the task of supervising the carrying out of the ceasefire agreement for the particular country

to which it was assigned. In each case, however-and this point is sometimes forgotten- the execution of the terms of the cease-fire agreement is the responsibility of the two sides directly concerned. The international commissions have no enforcement powers and their functions are purely mediatory, judicial and supervisory.
In Viet Nam the main provisions of the cease-fire agreement for withdrawal and redeployment of French forces from north Viet Nam and Viet Minh forces from the south have so far been carried out reasonably well. This regroupment process which is to be completed, I believe, by May 18 has taken place without serious incident and is now well advanced. That is no mean achievement. I think we can take some satisfaction from the knowledge that the international commission, with Canadian membership, in its supervisory role and through mediation has helped to bring about this situation.
In relation to those clauses of the ceasefire agreement designed to maintain the military status quo and forbidding the introduction into Viet Nam of fresh troops, arms or munitions except on a restricted replacement basis, the international commission through its inspection teams, fixed and mobile, has tried to maintain a check on men and materials entering the country. It has taken some time to establish the inspection machinery which is required for this purpose, and I certainly am not yet in a position to say how effective it will prove to be.
In other parts of the world we have already had some experience with the difficulties encountered by international commissions with communist representation in an effort to police activities of this kind. Hence in Viet Nam, if one of the parties to the agreement is determined to circumvent these provisions of the agreement the international commission is not likely to be able to prevent it, though the inspection activities which are possible and which are being undertaken will certainly make, and indeed are making, violations more difficult.
With respect to those provisions of the cease-fire agreement relating to the right of democratic freedom and the movement of refugees, the record is not satisfactory. This has been a matter of great concern to us in view of our responsibility on this commission, because it has involved the fate of many thousands of Christians who have suddenly found themselves under the hard and intolerant rule of a communist administration. Our own representative on the Viet Nam commission has spared no effort 50433-1494
External Affairs
to see to it that the commission does all within its power to facilitate the movement of persons from one zone to the other as is provided in the armistice agreement itself. In this the commission has had some success; but it has also encountered difficulties, particularly, it is fair to add, because of the obstructive tactics of the communist government in northern Viet Nam. But here again it must be remembered that the responsibility for carrying out the terms of the agreement rests solely with the parties, who must cooperate with at least a minimum of good faith if the provisions of the armistice are to be properly implemented. All the commission can do is mediate, supervise and conciliate; it cannot enforce.
Notwithstanding these limitations on its powers and certain delays and obstructions that it has encountered-and they all have not been in the north-it is true to say that thousands of refugees from the north are now free in southern Viet Nam because of the international commission. As a matter of fact I think there has been a movement southward of something near half a million refugees. Most of them of course went south before the commission was established.
Our responsibilities on the supervisory commission in Viet Nam do not at the present time extend beyond the supervision of the implementation of the cease-fire agreement. The governments represented on that commission have not received any invitation or directive from the Geneva conference powers with respect to the supervision of elections that are to take place in due course in Viet Nam, as envisaged in the final declaration of the Geneva conference. It is expected, however, that we will be asked to do this along with the other two governments represented on the commission. So far as we are concerned, the responsibilities and procedures regarding the holding of elections would have to be defined satisfactorily and clearly by agreement between the parties concerned before we would be willing to undertake specific tasks in that connection as members of an international commission.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just a word about Laos, the second of these three countries. The main problem facing the commission in Laos has to do with the two northern provinces of Phongsaly and Samneua where the fighting forces of the so-called Pathet Lao, which have communist support, were concentrated pending a political settlement and their subsequent reintegration into the national community of Laos. So far as these northern areas of Laos are concerned, all you have to do is look at a map of that part of the world to realize their strategic importance, standing

External Affairs
as they do between northern Viet Nam and Thailand. These northern areas have been the scene of numerous incidents involving both the communist Pathet Lao forces on the one hand >and the royal Laotian forces on the other, and for which the former must bear the main share of responsibility.
Unfortunately, the commission's teams have not always been able to investigate these incidents as promptly or as thoroughly as was desirable. There is always a lack of communication facilities in that part of the country, and I am bound to say there has been no lack of communist obstruction. It is to be hoped that this state of affairs, which has caused us real anxiety on the commission, will be remedied. On the whole, however, the military provisions of the Laotian agreement have been fairly satisfactorily carried out, and I think the presence in that country at this time of an international commission has done a great deal to prevent a recurrence of open and possibly serious hostilities.
The third country in which we are involved is Cambodia. Perhaps the most important problem there is reintegrating into the national community the indigenous resistance forces, which again have received communist support. It is our hope that Canada, as a member of that commission, will be able to help pave the way to a prosperous and peaceful future in that country. It was reported a few days ago in the press that the king of Cambodia abdicated because of the unjustified interference of the commission in domestic concerns of that country, more particularly in his desire to have the people vote on a new constitution. There is no ground for that charge, nor has there been any unwarranted interference of any kind by the commission in the domestic affairs of that country. Some intervention has been necessary under the terms of the armistice. The commission has not gone beyond those terms.
Before going on to other matters I should like to pay tribute, and I know the house will agree with me in this, to the very fine and unselfish work which is being done by our people in Indo-China, not only by the chief commissioner, a very distinguished Canadian who has served his country well both in peace and war, Mr. Sherwood Lett, and the other Canadian commissioners who are members of the external affairs department, but by all the members of our armed services and our foreign service, numbering now something over 160, who are in these three countries. Many of them have to work and live under conditions of discomfort, hardship and even danger. They are, however, carrying out their difficult assignments with resourcefulness, with devotion, with patience and

skill. Theirs is an important contribution to the maintenance of peace in Indo-China, and they are making a fine impression wherever they work as representatives of Canada.
I should like particularly to pay my deep respect to the memory of Mr. Jack Thurrott, one of our department's foreign service officers, who had his promising career cut short in Indo-China when he met with a tragic accident while serving as political adviser to the Canadian commissioner in Laos.
To the question as to how long Canadians are committed to serve with these commissions in these far-off countries, the very names of which were unfamiliar to most of our people only a short time ago, there is no simple answer. The agreements themselves are not specific on the point. We intend to keep our representatives there as long, but only as long, as they can make a useful contribution to the implementation of the armistice agreement reached at Geneva, and therefore to peace in that part of the world.
The second sector of the three I have mentioned is Korea. The last time I reported to the house on Korea was on June 11 last. I said then, referring to the Geneva conference which was then meeting, that if some satisfactory answers were not soon forthcoming from the communist side of that conference on the matter of free elections and all that implied, and if the communist powers at Geneva were not prepared to agree to international supervision of an election by a workable commission acceptable to the United Nations and composed of genuine neutrals, the United Nations side might shortly have to consider whether it was worth while continuing the effort at Geneva to reach agreement for the peaceful unification of Korea.
Shortly after I made that statement the communist representatives at Geneva made it crystal clear that they would neither agree to a Korea united through genuinely free elections nor accept the mandate of the United Nations mission in the divided peninsula. So the conference ended on June 15, as there was no useful purpose to be served in continuing it.
Subsequently the participating member states on our side informed the United Nations in a joint report of the failure of the conference. When the last session of the general assembly reached the Korean item on its agenda the communists had not at that time given any indication of a change in their position, so the assembly could make no move last autumn in New York toward the achievement of peace and unification on any satisfactory basis. All that could be done was to pass a resolution, and that was done by a vote of 50 to 5, approving the report reaffirming the United Nations objective in Korea,

and expressing the hope that progress toward this might soon be made. Should the communist position on these matters change we would favour resumption of negotiations.
How could such negotiations best be conducted if the circumstances were propitious for them? - The Korean question remains before the United Nations; yet it is clear now, of course, that it cannot be peacefully resolved without the concurrence of the North Korean and Chinese communist governments, governments which are not members of the United Nations and which have defied its charter.
At Geneva negotiations were conducted outside of the United Nations but in conformity with its principles. If further efforts to unify Korea peacefully are to be made then the United Nations will have to face the problem of finding an acceptable procedure for sponsoring negotiations which, to have any chance of success, will have to include these two non-members, North Korea and communist China.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I should say something about Formosa, the third sector of what I might call this Far Eastern front. I should like to try to explain as briefly as possible why the situation which has arisen in the Formosa strait is so worrying, and indeed so potentially explosive; particularly our own concern with and relationship to that situation. On the substance of the matter I have not very much to add to what I said in the house in January and last month, because the policy I stated then has not been altered. But there have been certain new developments.
It is reassuring, for instance, that the evacuation of thousands of civilians and soldiers from the Tachen and Nankishen islands has taken place without any serious incident. The decision to evacuate these islands was, if not an easy one, certainly a wise one for the Chinese nationalist government to make. The Chinese communists wisely did not attempt to interfere with these operations. Their completion without warlike incident does show at least that hostilities can be avoided in operations of this kind if restraint is exercised on both sides.
There is naturally much concern in all our minds-and that concern has been voiced in the house-as to what the Chinese communists have in mind regarding Formosa and those few coastal islands which still remain in the hands of the Chinese nationalists. It is devoutly to be hoped that the Chinese communists do not, by the use of force, renew the war over those islands, the consequences of which might spread further. Yet their
External Affairs
words do not give us much comfort in this regard, if we are to judge their future actions by their past words.
It has been argued, especially by some of our Asian friends, that the leaders of the Peking government are inspired more by Chinese than by communist aspirations; more by the desire to work out a national revolution than to precipitate an international one by interference in the affairs of their neighbours. True, they have embarked-that is the Peking government-upon an enormous program of industrial and agricultural development, and it would seem foolhardy for them to risk all this in military adventures. Unfortunately, however, it is not possible to count upon the wisdom or restraint of a regime of this kind. The combination of national revolutionary fervour with the messianic delusions of communist ideology have in the past and can in the future prove dangerous. The Chinese communists may not be intent upon a career of Asian aggression and expansion, but their determination to pursue what they claim to be their legitimate interests has already led them to ignore the legitimate interests and security of other peoples, and may do so again. And that possibility certainly contains a serious threat to peace.
And so we cannot ignore in this connection the communist intention, loudly and frequently proclaimed, to attack and occupy Formosa and the islands. We can, however, having regard to declared United States policy to help in the defence of Formosa, retain strong doubts about their capacity to achieve this objective in the near future by any direct assault. To maintain an amphibious or airborne attack 100 miles across the Formosa strait would be a hazardous operation for a land power like communist China and would certainly strain its as yet limited resources, much more than did the operations in Korea.
The chairman of the United States joint chiefs of staff, Admiral Radford, was asked in an interview a few weeks ago what he thought of the Chinese communists' ability to carry out their threat to, as they put it, liberate Formosa. Admiral Radford's reply was:
They cannot do it at this time. They just do not have the military capability to carry out an amphibious operation of the scale required, particularly in view of the announced United States position and the immediate availability of United States naval and air forces to counter such an operation.
That was Admiral Radford's conclusion, and that same conclusion has led many to doubt that the communists have in mind an invasion of the coastal islands of Quemoy and Matsu as a prelude to or part of an attack

External Affairs
on Formosa. In any event, it would be tragic if widespread hostilities, or indeed hostilities of any kind, were to develop over the possession of these two islands which are, in effect, part of the Chinese mainland, and the strategic role of which would seem to be more important in the defence of that mainland against attack than in offensive action against Formosa and the Pescadores.
This problem of Formosa and the coastal islands is one of the most difficult which the free world at this moment has to face. It is one on which it is possible for friends and allies to honestly hold different opinions. Although the basic issues between the free world and the communist world are clear enough, we have here a dispute in which that clarity is not, to say the least, obvious. On the one hand, I think we have to recognize that in dangerous times like these positions which are demonstrably of tactical or strategic advantage in the struggle with communist aggression or imperialism cannot lightly be abandoned in the face of communist threats by those who hold them. Formosa is considered by many to be one such important position. There is also-and this has been particularly emphasized in Washington-the political problem arising out of the bad effect on morale in Formosa and in neighbouring free Asian states, if further losses or retreats take place in the face of Chinese communist attack or pressure, or both.
Then, finally, the people of Formosa, about whom we do not hear very much, unfortunately, in connection with these matters, and those Chinese from the mainland who have fled there from communism, have a claim to consideration, both in respect of proposals to hand them over to a communist regime against their will, and in respect of proposals to involve them in a Chinese civil war without any regard to their own wishes.
So, in a situation as complex as that, it is not surprising that there are doubts and divisions among the governments and the peoples of the non-communist world. But it would be a sorry development if these were allowed to split or seriously weaken our peace coalition. It is true that some members of that coalition, including Canada, cannot subscribe to all aspects of United States policy in this Asian area, especially in regard to the coastal islands. But we are certain, I am sure, that that policy is not intended to lead to conflict. Personally I am satisfied that those who are directing it in Washington feel that it will help to avoid rather than provoke conflict.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is United States policy determined by the United States and embodied in a bilateral security treaty

which she has signed with the Chinese nationalist government. Canada, of course, is not a party to or not committed by that treaty or that policy. We certainly have the right to comment on that policy but we should be careful, I suggest, that our comments on it are constructive and responsible, and not merely negative and divisive. Carping and unbalanced criticism is, to say the least, unhelpful at this time, or indeed at any time.
What is the United States position? In regard to Formosa itself, as I have said, the United States is firmly committed to its defence by treaty, even though the legal and political status of that island may be uncertain. But-and this is often forgotten- that same treaty gives the United States the right to restrain aggressive Chinese nationalist action from Formosa.
What about the coastal islands of Quemoy and Matsu, the immediate point of armed conflict between the two Chinas, and therefore the point of most immediate danger? United States policy here is based on acceptance of the responsibility to make secure and protect "positions and territories" which, in the judgment of the President, "are necessary to, or related to the defence of Formosa." That does not involve a commitment or a purpose, as Mr. Dulles put it in New York on February 17, to "defend the coastal islands, as such"; but, he added, the Chinese communists themselves have "linked the coastal positions to the defence of Formosa". Therefore, in his own words, the United States "will be alert to Chinese communist actions, rejecting for ourselves any initiative of warlike deeds".
As I understand it, this is a warning to the Peking government not to use force against these islands, preparatory to attack or as a build-up for an attack on Formosa. The President alone has the power to decide at the time whether such an attack is local against the islands or a stage in an assault on Formosa itself. Mr. Dulles restated that position on March 8, and he added something to his earlier statement when, in discussing the responsibility of the President in this matter, he said:
How to implement this flexible defence of Formosa the President will decide in the light of his judgment as to the over-all value of certain coastal positions to the defence of Formosa and the cost of holding these positions.
Well, that is not going to be an easy decision for the President to make if unfortunately the time ever arises that he has to make it. If it has to be made, I am glad the decision is in the hands of a man like President Eisenhower, a man of character and integrity, with a passion for peace.

On their part, the Chinese communists insist that these islands are part of the mainland of their own country and that if Chiang Kai-shek's troops do not evacuate them they will be driven out.
The possibility of serious trouble arising out of these conflicting positions is obvious and creates understandable and real anxiety, because the consequences might involve more than the two Chinese governments.
The Canadian position on this matter has been stated in the house, Mr. Speaker. We have accepted no commitment to share in the defence of either Formosa or the coastal islands, or to intervene in any struggle between the two Chinese governments for possession of these offshore islands. Our obligations in this matter arise only out of our responsibilities as a member of the United Nations, and I have stated in this house what those are. We also think that a distinction, politically and strategically, can be made between Formosa and the coastal islands; also indeed between Formosa and Korea. Nevertheless, the fact that we have no commitments certainly does not mean that we have no concern. We have a deep and abiding concern because of considerations which make isolation from these questions wellnigh impossible.
There is first our general concern with peace and anything that might threaten it. Then there is our special concern with United States policy from the consequences of which Canada, a North American country, cannot escape. Finally there is our close concern with anything that weakens-as this question may-that coalition the strength and unity of which, under the leadership of the United States, is at present the strongest deterrent against communist aggression and war.
I have said, Mr. Speaker, only recently, as many others have said before me, that it would be impossible, in my view, for either the United States or Canada to be neutral if the people of the other country were engaged in a major war in which their very existence as a people was at stake, and that in working out our foreign and our defence policies we can never forget that fact. By "we" I mean the United States as well as Canada. I think that is self-evident. It is one of the facts of international life which we, and indeed other countries, have accepted. We in Canada have already recognized that fact by our membership in NATO. We have recognized it also in our North American continental defence arrangements which are and must be, to be effective, on a joint basis and closely cooperative.
External Affairs
Canadians, and I believe Americans also, understand and accept the inescapable interdependence of Canada and the United States in the policies required for our joint security and for the preservation of peace. We cannot, therefore, isolate ourselves from the implications of that interdependence, if either country were ever attacked by an aggressor. If these implications at times cause anxiety on our part, as they do, we certainly would have far greater cause for anxiety if there were no recognition across the border of any such mutual security and defence relationship, or no recognition of our right to make our views known on matters which may be primarily the responsibility of Washington.
There are two main reasons, I think, why the people of Canada do understand and accept this situation. The first is that any war in which we were jointly engaged would be a defensive one. It is inconceivable to Canadians, it is inconceivable certainly to me, that the United States would ever initiate an aggressive war. It is also inconceivable that Canada would ever take part in such a war.
The second reason, as I see it, is that the only aggressive force that threatens us today, or that could commit a major aggression, is communist imperialism. Does anybody believe that we could or should keep out of an all-out struggle precipitated by communist aggressive power which, if victorious, would end everything that makes for free and decent existence?
That, then, Mr. Speaker, is the meaning of the proposition I have advanced, of the inevitability of close, co-operative arrangements with the United States in maintaining the peace and in joint defence against a major attack. This means, as the United Nations and NATO meant, that our right to be neutral has been limited by our desire to strengthen the security of our country and protect the peace. It does not mean, although I have heard it misstated in these terms, that whenever the United States is engaged in any kind of war, we are at war.
Only the other day I was reading an editorial in a Canadian paper which analysed very correctly what I was trying to say in Toronto the other day. After reading that editorial I went on to read a news story about the same subject and over that news story in large red type were these words: "U.S. Wars are ours". Nothing I have said today, or nothing I have said before, means that.
It certainly does not mean that we must participate in limited or peripheral wars,

External Affairs
although because of the danger of such wars spreading it gives us the right and the duty to express our concern, not only in Washington but also in London or in the United Nations or in NATO, over situations or policies that might lead to conflict. It also makes it imperative on all of us to prevent local conflicts, not only because they are war -war is war whether local or general-but also because they can spread and cover the world. In that case there would be no future for any of us, because a war that covered the world would be a nuclear war.
This view that we could not be neutral in a major war when the very existence of the people of the United States was at stake, far from representing an abdication of responsibility for our foreign policy, extends and deepens that responsibility. It underlines our right and our obligation to concern ourselves with and make our views known on the policies of others, especially of the United States, when questions of peace and war are involved. Its possession of the greatest power in the world gives us, I think, the right to be especially preoccupied with the policies of the United States. It makes consultation and a continuous exchange of views imperative. It emphasizes our obligation to do everything possible to avoid every kind of war, big or little.
That is one reason why we were so glad to welcome to Ottawa in recent days the secretary of state of the United States, and to discuss with him very frankly and very fully United States policy and our own policy on these matters. It has been argued-I commend this to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-that if the Americans know we accept the proposition that in the circumstances I have mentioned Canada and the United States must stand together, Washington will no longer pay much if any attention to anything we say; they will, if I may use a colloquialism, feel that they have us in the bag. Of course the exact contrary is the case, as is shown by the reply Mr. Dulles made to a question asked at his press conference in this city last Friday. I should like to put this question and answer on the record, and I quote:
Q. Mr. Pearson said that in the event ol a major war it would be impossible for Canada to stand aloof if the United States was at war. Some people interpreted that to mean the United States can now count on Canada in an emergency and therefore you will not pay as much attention to any protest against American foreign policy you get from Ottawa.
A. It is decidedly not true. The extent to which our countries can count upon each other depends

primarily upon whether or not we each conduct ourselves in a way which wins the moral approval and support of the other.
Then he went on:
Now there are, to be sure, explicit engagements which are expressed in the North Atlantic treaty. Aside from that, the question of whether we support each other depends on the judgment that each country has of the other. I would not expect that Canada would blindly support the United States and I suppose the Canadian people would not expect to count on the support of the United States if they should engage in a venture which alienated public opinion in the United States.
It is highly unlikely that those contingencies will occur, because we do have the same ideals, and because we do keep in touch with each other. Common action depends, for its mainspring, upon what our declaration of independence calls "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". That relationship makes it sure that each of our countries will seek and pay heed to the views of the other.
Mr. Dulles also had something interesting to say in reply to one other question at the same conference, and I quote:
Q. Mr. Secretary, in the present situation around Formosa and the offshore islands, if something should arise does the United States count on the support of Canada?
A. That is entirely a matter for the Canadians to decide for themselves. There are no treaty engagements of any kind other than perhaps the United Nations charter which create any obligations on the part of Canada in relation to that part of the world. Therefore, we do not count on them in the sense that there is any obligation or undertaking. Naturally, we always hope and believe that our conduct will be such as to win the moral support and approval of other free nations, and particularly of the Canadian people.
While believing strongly in the view that the destinies of our two countries are intertwined in the way I have already indicated and as Mr. Dulles has indicated, as well as many others, I want to reaffirm my view that we could not stand aloof from a major war which threatened the very existence of the people of the United States; but I must add in all frankness that I do not consider a conflict between two Chinese governments for possession of these Chinese coastal islands, Quemoy or the Matsus, to be such a situation, or one requiring any Canadian intervention in support of the Chinese nationalist regime. That view has already been made known more than once to our friends in Washington.
What I fear most in this matter is that even limited intervention, defensive in purpose, by the United States might have a chain reaction with unforeseen consequences which would cause the conflict to spread far beyond the locality where it began, and even across the ocean. If a little war were to spread like this it could become literally the little war before the last. That is why, may I repeat, we in Canada are definitely and deeply concerned in this particular issue, as we would be in any other peripheral conflict involving

the United States, even though we might have no commitments in regard to it which would put us under any obligation for participation, except that which would flow out of our United Nations membership.
That is also one of the reasons we have to keep in the closest possible touch with Washington, as well as with London and New Delhi and other friendly capitals, on all these matters, and more particularly on these Formosan matters. I have personally more than once made known our views, our serious doubts and anxieties to the secretary of state on this matter and have received from him a full statement of the United States position and the reason it has been adopted. He has confirmed the view, which I have already expressed, that there is no aggressive purpose of any kind behind that United States position.
It seems to me that the first requirement at the moment for the avoidance of conflict is for both Chinese sides to refrain from using force, particularly-this is the immediate danger point-against or from the coastal islands, but also against or from Formosa. We can certainly agree, I think, with Mr. Dulles when he said in New York in that speech which I have already mentioned:
We do not expect the Chinese communists to renounce their ambitions. However, might they not renounce their efforts to realize their goals by force?
If the Chinese communists have a case in this matter, then there are ways and means by which civilized countries can attempt peacefully to settle these disputes, both inside and outside the United Nations. An effort has already been launched in the security council to bring about a cease-fire as a preliminary to a political settlement based on reason and justice. The response to this initiative by the Peking regime was a summary refusal, but the council has shown great restraint in order to keep the door open for a peaceful solution whenever this can be obtained.
For the moment, however, I think there is a greater chance of finding a solution by direct diplomatic negotiation, which is presently going on, than by the use of the security council or even by calling a conference outside the United Nations. The main difficulty in the first case, a meeting of the security council, arises over the fact that the Chinese communist government is not a member of the United Nations and now refuses to participate in a United Nations meeting at which China is represented by the Chinese nationalist government. The main difficulty in the
External Affairs
second case, a conference outside the United Nations, is, I think, that it would be premature at this juncture, even if it were possible to get the two Chinese governments into the same room.
Although efforts that have been made have not yet resulted in any solution, we do not need to despair or abandon these efforts, which as I have said are taking place through diplomatic channels. What has been accomplished has revealed indications on the communist side of at least a desire to avoid all-out war.
In the age of the hydrogen bomb a readiness to negotiate may be inspired not by love but by fear. Whatever may be the cause, there is some reason to hope that all the parties concerned may at least be looking for a solution which they could dare to accept. If this is the case, then it would be great folly to miss any opportunity for negotiation which might present itself; even worse folly to destroy all such peaceful possibility by falling back again on the use of force. If a settlement could be reached over this most acute of all recent disputes, the free world might conceivably find itself in a position from which it could proceed, even if slowly, laboriously and fitfully, to establish a framework of peace and political stability in the Far East. The search for that peace and stability may require strong defences, but no solution will be found merely by putting a sterile reliance exclusively on those defences. That is one reason why I should say a few words, Mr. Speaker, about the disarmament discussion which is taking place in London at the present time, and concerning which some questions have been asked in this house.
As hon. members know, there is a subcommittee of five powers, and Canada is one of them, now meeting in London to discuss the limitation of armaments that are now ironically called both conventional and atomic weapons. That sub commission of five is meeting again after having met last spring as a result of a United Nations assembly resolution last fall with which my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) had a great deal to do. That meeting in London is taking place in the awful shadow of the hydrogen bomb, which should be incentive enough for achievement. Hon. members will recall that last spring four-power proposals were put forward for limitation of armaments, atomic and conventional, by stages, with effective and complete control and inspection at every stage.
I cannot say much about what is going on in London because those meetings are being

External Affairs
held in confidence; and although Pravda in Moscow, the organ of the Soviet government, has today given a contentious and distorted account of what is happening there and has broken the confidence to that extent, I do not propose to follow that example. I can say, however, as I said the other day, that while the lack of progress is discouraging that is no reason why we should call off the negotiations. It is far too early to say yet that these negotiations must break down in failure and futility. There is every reason why they should not. If they can only succeed in taking one step forward that would do something to remove that fear in the world which is the father of armaments.
It may also be, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to go into the details of this, that the introduction of the H-bomb into these discussions has really brought in a new element, and it may be that all of us will have to take a new look at this problem. The approach we have been making in the past has depended for any success on an agreement over a complete and foolproof system of international control. That is going to be more difficult than ever in the light of these new weapons which lend themselves even less than previous weapons did to such inspection and control. But without some kind of control and inspection which would give us a basis for confidence in any agreements reached being observed, any disarmament proposals under the present circumstances of fear and contention would merely be a cruel and hypocritical delusion and could be put forward only for propaganda.
The stakes are too high in this matter to call any discussions off quickly. We are told by scientists there is no means of ensuring complete or even adequate defence against these nuclear weapons and the means of carrying and dropping them on great masses of people. Therefore we must concentrate more than ever not only, I suggest, on the limitation of armaments, important though that may be, but in the search for measures which will prevent war itself. What is certain is that the control of our power to destroy ourselves is a subject of such desperate importance that if either side should use it as a means of propaganda or counter-propaganda it would be utter folly and might be supreme tragedy.
There are some who get comfort out of the conclusion that those new weapons are so annihilating that no side will dare use them if it is certain that the other side will retaliate and has preserved the means to do so against surprise destruction. It was said by an authority whose words we always
(Mr. Pearson.l
respect-I refer to Sir Winston Churchill- in the House of Commons in London the
other day:
"It was an ironic fact that we had reached a stage where safety might well be the child of terror and life the twin brother of annihilation."
In other words, according to this view peace instead of resting on a balance of power now rests on a balance of terror. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in one sense it is true that the greatest deterrent against a general war, although not against a limited one, is the certainty of nuclear retaliation. In present circumstances that may be our best safeguard. If that is true it may give us some time which can and must be used for continuing the persistent and patient search for the solution to international problems and for the easing of international tensions. If we do not find such agreement and understanding then peace, such as it is, will be balanced on a hydrogen bomb or, to use the words which Mr. Nehru used a few weeks ago in London:
"Mankind would be doomed to hover indefinitely on the brink of catastrophe."
To avoid such a fate, Mr. Speaker, demands, and I know it will receive, all the support, all the strength, the energy, wisdom and faith of every member of this house.


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say to my hon. friend that he has covered several of the issues with clarity and authority, but there is one matter he did not deal with. No doubt the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) will deal with that, pursuant to the promise he gave to the house in February-I refer to the commonwealth prime ministers' conference- so the house and the country will have some idea, over and above the sketchy outline that has been given to date, of what took place at that historic conference.
This debate affords the opportunity to discuss those matters that are of pre-eminent interest to the Canadian people, in the world of today, as well as to provide for the submission to the committee on external affairs of the estimates of the department. The minister stated that while Canada's influence is not always decisive, it is one of co-operation, and referred to the contribution made by the officials of his department in various parts of the world.
I think it is well that deserved tribute should be accorded to those who serve Canada in all parts of the world. When abroad I have had the privilege and opportunity of seeing the work done by members of the Canadian diplomatic corps. The

career men are outstanding. Among others I think of Dana Wilgress, Mr. Robertson in London, Mr. Desy in Paris and Mr. Dupuy in Rome. These men and others that could be mentioned bring us honour by the representation they give Canada in those countries. If I may be allowed to do so I should like to refer to the contribution made by my own constituency in the persons of two former members of the bar in the city of Prince Albert, Mr. T. C. Davis and Mr. W. F. A. Turgeon, whose appointments have given satisfaction in the lands in which they have served and have redounded to the credit of Canada.
However, with respect to foreign representation, I feel that consideration should also be given to increasing the number of noncareer diplomats, not to the extent that they constitute a majority, but to the end that the non-official mind will be available for the consideration of the problems that arise in the various countries in which they would represent Canada.
The minister referred to the increasing importance of Canada. That increasing importance has been shown by the fact that in recent weeks a number of outstanding leaders of world opinion have visited this country. Included in that number are the Prime Minister of Pakistan; the Prime Minister of Australia; Paul Henri Spaak of Belgium; the latest visitor to our country, John Foster Dulles-to whom I intend to refer in a moment-and today, the Prime Minister of Italy. The fact that they visit Canada and consult with the representatives of Canada is indicative of the importance of this country, in their view.
Mr. Dulles made a profound impression on Canadians during his recent visit. He spoke with authority, restraint, ability and a knowledge of world affairs that opened up new vistas in the thinking of those who were privileged to hear him and meet him. When he returned to Washington he used words that I think are particularly applicable on an occasion such as this, and are pertinent to the concluding remarks made by the minister:
The goal of our nation's foreign policy is to enjoy in peace the blessings of liberty. Peace is the product of many wills and not merely of one alone. In the past it has been necessary to forgo peace in order to assure the possession of the blessings of liberty. We dare not be blind to the fact that that may happen again.
In those words are epitomized the words of the minister in the concluding paragraphs of his speech. One of the reasons for Canada's importance in the world is that we are the nearest neighbour of the United States and of the U.S.S.R. As Mr. Dulles said on
External Affairs
the occasion of the press conference, the U.S.S.R. is unlikely to win a general war unless it can knock out quickly North America's industrial power, and for that reason measures must be taken by the United States and Canada-
-to assure that the great reservoir of the strength which resides in this continent shall not be subject to quick destruction.
The objective of our foreign policy is the achievement of peace. If ever there was a time when Canadians should speak with restraint and with a realization of the part that Canada will play in defence in the future should war ever come, that time is now. I feel that in this country there is a campaign of anti-American feeling, a dangerous luxury in the position in which Canadians are.
I shall refer to some events which have happened recently and which are discouraging. In southeast Asia the danger is great because of the march of communism and the industrialization of China that is taking place. With vast industrialization under way the pressure for markets in southeast Asia and Asia generally carries not only peril to the defence against communism, but is something to be considered by Japan, whose recent elections assured that communism has made no impression upon the people of that country.
The next two days are days of tremendous importance, as the French parliament faces the problem of the ratification of western European union. All will hope for the ratification by France of the organization of free nations that has been set up and without which peace in the world and a bulwark against communism may well be denied.
Yet there are other things that are favourable. I think one of the most symbolic moves in recent days, a move of great significance in a war-shadowed world, was made by President Eisenhower, to whom the minister referred in such proper terms, when in appointing Harold Stassen as secretary of disarmament he assured the world that the goal of the United States is peace. This is the first occasion in the history of mankind that a direct effort has been made to make peace one of the individual achievements and ideals of a country. On the other hand, of course, we have the statement of Zhukov a few days ago, on the occasion of the 37th anniversary of the Soviet army. He said that the aggressive forces of the imperialistic countries, headed by the United States monopolists, are openly preparing a new war against the Soviet union and the Chinese people's republic.
That is their story, but I believe the appointment of Mr. Stassen, with his magnificent record of unselfish service internationally, even if it does nothing else, will

External Affairs
have a psychological effect in assuring doubtful peoples in various parts of the world that the United States does not have its finger on the trigger. The ratification of western European union by the various countries mentioned by the minister gives hope for the future. On the other hand, the mobilization of the U.S.S.R. and the seven puppet states that are today united in a military organization under Soviet command makes one pause.
No problem we face can be greater than this. Our aim and desire is peace, yet every minute of every day $165,000 is being expended throughout the world on armaments. That is the expenditure today on the preparation of armaments in every part of the world. One sometimes wonders whether Liddell Hart was not justified in the statement he made the other day, that it is very questionable whether much of the defence planning and expenditure since 1945 has been realistic.
I come now to the reference by the minister to the need of assistance to countries in Asia. He indicated that the armies of communism march on the empty stomachs of their potential recruits. I think it was Gandhi who, as I recall, said that to the millions who have to go without two meals a day the only acceptable form in which God dares appear is food. The minister spoke of the solicitude of the government, the fact that hunger entices men, and communism is thereby encouraged.
I ask the minister whether the precepts he has declared have been carried out in the recommendations of the government which he represents. What of the Colombo plan? What of this plan that is to assist mankind by raising living standards in various parts of the world? With pomp and ceremony the nations of the world met here last October. On that occasion the Prime Minister made a speech in the form of a prayer. He said:
May an all-wise Providence, ever attentive to the efforts of men of good will, look with favour upon our efforts to assist each other.
As one newspaper said, graceful speeches do not feed hungry nations. One of them even went so far as to indicate that the minister alone of the members of the cabinet to which he belongs is a strong believer in the need of action in this direction. What are we doing? We are making pious declarations but are not coupling those declarations with effective action through votes in this connection placed before parliament. I do not believe in extravagant promises. My hon. friends to the left speak of a billion dollars.

Personally I think such a figure is as unrealistic as the present contribution of Canada is out of keeping with Canada's responsibilities.
The minister spoke in powerful language and phraseology of the tremendous advantages of movements such as this; yet the government of Canada intends this year to increase the contribution of each and every Canadian by 15 cents per person. That is an example of the precept not being matched by the performance. The total contribution being made by Canada in connection with technological advances and improvements in less fortunate lands will amount this year to $2.06 per person. I sometimes wonder whether the minister was affected by a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) a few short months ago. The Minister of Agriculture stated then that the situation in Asia was not very serious after all, since there were 100 million people in India who lived on a higher standard than did Canadians. That is not in keeping with the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the house in 1950, on which occasion he used these words in support of the need of assistance under plans similar or analogous to the Colombo plan. He said, as found at page 131 of Hansard of February 22:
The social and economic danger arises out of the fact that the people out there-
He is speaking of Asia.
-are learning that independence is not enough.
Today he used words similar in kind but different in actuality.
The agitation for freedom has stirred up in them other desires; for improvements in their conditions of life; for a change from distress, privation and even starvation; for a change from a life expectancy of 20 years and an average income of less than $50 a year. These new democratic governments are attempting to meet these new hungers, these new hopes, these new demands. There is danger not only to their own countries but to the rest of the world if they do not succeed in that attempt. But they are meeting these dangers as responsible, free, democratic governments, proceeding stage by stage without, as they progress, destroying the framework of society or of government.
I say to the minister that while his declarations are magnificent in their idealism he-should do something to change the thinking, of some of the ministers who sit with him, to the end that these ideals may be translated into effective action. No one can tell a serious-minded Canadian that Canada today is making the contribution in that connection which the demands of the times require.
Having said that, I pass on to an event that will occur during the coming months, the

meeting in San Francisco of the United Nations. This afternoon I am going to deal with Canada's position under three heads. First, her position in the United Nations; second, her position in the commonwealth, to which I hope the Prime Minister will give his attention, and place before parliament a picture that is not as ambiguous and hazy as the one he presented a few weeks ago; and, finally, our position with relation to the United States of America in the co-operation which must, by reason of our geographical position, be maintained between us.
I ask the minister this: What is being done on the part of Canada to make a contribution to suggestions about alterations in the charter? I realize the difficulty. I realize the possibly insurmountable difficulties. Over the years it has been subjected to some 61 vetoes, a course of action that was never expected at San Francisco. There is the contention by the minister and also by the Prime Minister, when he returned from the old country, that possibly some of these matters might well be solved by secret diplomacy, by meetings outside the United Nations and by considerations beyond the United Nations, rather than through the instrumentality of the body that was set up for the purpose of making settlements of these matters.
Today there are many critics who say that the United Nations has become a debating society. I am not in agreement with them. But I do believe this, that on every occasion that secret diplomacy is resorted to, the authority and prestige of the United Nations is correspondingly reduced. I think Canada has followed a course that deserves commendation in one particular. Other countries more and more are by-passing the United Nations, in sending to that body representatives with other than cabinet rank. Canada has continued to be represented by two members of the government of this country. I believe that has been a course worthy of the aspirations of the United Nations and one that might well be emulated by those other countries that are members of that organization.
However, as I listened today as the minister outlined the question of Formosa, I could not but think that a considerable change has come over him since he delivered his speech the other day extra-murally in the city of Toronto. There has been a change in external affairs, particularly in Canada's position internationally, arising from the Formosa situation and also in consequence of our geographical position.
Mr. Dulles upon his return to Washington indicated there that the situation was serious
External Affairs
in the Far East. The minister today used the expression "explosive". When Mr. Dulles came back from Asia he said he came back with foreboding which was analogous to that of an irresistible force about to meet an immovable object. He was asked to speculate on the question as to whether or not, with the uncertainties of the Chinese mind, war might result from the stand being taken regarding Formosa and the two islands of Quemoy and Matsu. He said, narratively, that collision might take place next week, next year, or perhaps never.
The minister says he is not in agreement with the stand being taken by the United States. That stand is a unilateral one so far as the United States is concerned. It has assumed responsibilities that, for generations, were discharged by the British. Today in Asia, by reason of its assumption of world power, it finds itself making decisions which are fearful in their import and dangerous in their possible consequences.
The minister pointed out the wording of Mr. Dulles' statement of the United States position, that an attack on Quemoy and Matsu as such-and he emphasized those two words-would not necessarily bring the United States into active conflict with the Chinese communists. In other words the position appears to be somewhat ambiguous. If in attacking those two islands the communists intend to use them as bases for an attack on Formosa, then as such they have conducted that provocation which inevitably, if United States policy is carried out, will lead to resistance by the United States. Indeed the power given to the President is such that he may proceed only if the conclusion to which he comes is that the steps being taken against those islands would indeed be steps indicative of an intention to proceed.
The United States sees that China is mobilizing industrially and agriculturally in a plan for the future, as no other nation in the world is mobilizing today. Communist China has tasted what the communists believe to have been a victory in Korea. The recital by the minister as to the situation in Korea might give colour to their belief. They believe that they are impregnable and irresistible. They take the view that the United States is irresolute because it did not stand at the Yalu river in 1950. They contend, in a propaganda way, that the United States welshed in Indo-China in 1954, and that the request to the Chiang Kai-shek government to relinquish the Tachen islands was indicative of irresolution and fear.

External Affairs
The minister says the situation in Formosa is potentially explosive. What message did he give today? When he spoke in Toronto a few days ago he used words that indicate a changed attitude on the part of Canada. I have his speech before me. Referring to the matter of continental defence he said:
Twice in this century Canada has been involved in a major war, locked in a life and death struggle for a period of two years or more before our American neighbours came in. Today I think that the neutrality of either of us, if the other were engaged in a major war in which its very existence were at stake, would be unthinkable. That is a tremendous change, and one which must affect all our policies and relations with the United States.
Today, I suggest with respect that policy has been watered down in the face of some criticism within this country. Today it is watered down by the use of the words that if, in consequence of aggressive action on the part of any nation, a major war follows, Canada could not in these circumstances be neutral. I believe the stand he took the other day in Toronto was one that commended itself generally to the Canadian people. But today the realism of last week appears to have been dissipated in the events that have taken place since. I for one cannot understand the addition of the extra words today in determining what Canada's policy should be.
A few weeks ago there was serious disagreement between Britain and the United States-at least so the press reported-but in the intervening days of the last three or four weeks, and particularly from the time that the Prime Minister attended the conference in London, there has been a narrowing of disagreement as between the views of the British government and the views of the United States government. Sir Anthony Eden made his declaration in parliament on March 8.
He stated his belief, with all the conviction in his power, that the United States government wished to see conditions created which would put an end to active military hostilities in the area and reduce the dangers of a wider conflict.
Then he went on to say that he hoped the Chinese government would refrain from continuing its claim on the Matsus. Then the foreign secretary continued in these words:
Her Majesty's government trusted that they would continue to exercise this restraint and that they would make it apparent that, while maintaining intact in all respects their position in regard to Formosa and the Pescadores, they would not prosecute their claims by forceful means.
Finally he went on to say this:
It was equally desirable that the Chinese nationalists should also do two things: we should like to see them withdraw their armed forces from the other coastal islands; we should hope they would let it be known that they, too, while maintaining their claims, would not prosecute them by forceful means and would abstain from all offensive military action.

I believe that in those words Britain took almost the same position as that taken by the United States.
The other day the minister dealt at some length with Canada's position in reference to the North American continent. This matter comes up for consideration particularly at this time; for in Canada's position with regard to her two neighbours, the great antagonists in the world of ideology, no one with a sense of reality could come to any other conclusion than that in any war in which the United States finds itself, with the U.S.S.R. on one side and the U.S.A. on the other, there can be no neutrality. But my hon. friend endeavours to leave the impression that if something should spring up in consequence of the difficulties between communist China and Chiang Kai-shek, it would be a bush fire. 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 allembracing conflict. If that comes, Canada's northland, which generations believed was a tundra of waste, will become the backbone of freedom's defence.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) chose the day of the external affairs debate, no doubt advisedly by reason of that fact, to place before the house the atomic energy policy of this country. Think of the vast uranium developments in northern Saskatchewan, where a few years ago there was no mineral development. Canada is in large measure the source of the uranium indispensable for modern war. With respect to Eldorado in northern Saskatchewan, I would suggest to the government that further consideration should be given to the preservation of that great monument to national endeavour, that necessary supply dump of Uranium, to use the expression in its widest sense. Consideration should be given to the danger inherent in the fact that two of the heads of the union there are indeed communists, and do not deny that they are.
Let me pass on from there, sir, to the question of continental defence. The Prime Minister made in London several speeches that have never been elucidated or unveiled in the House of Commons since his return. Apparently there was some discussion in Britain regarding the contribution that Canada might make in connection with continental defence and also regarding the setting up of a strategic reserve available for service in the danger spots of the world. The Prime Minister pointed out, as was reported by three or four of Canada's outstanding reporters in the press who were in attendance in London-


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: But not at the meetings.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no. It is true that they were not at the meetings, but there is such a similarity that it indicates someone in high authority, this anonymous somebody, sir, that invariably flies the kites for the government, did so on this occasion and furnished the information. The first was Mr. Jack Stepler, who stated-it is all in the narrative form-that the Prime Minister appeared before the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting and dealt with the question of defence.
And most Impressive was Canada's contribution to northern defence through the three lines of early warning stations, where the $200 million spent on only the mid-Canada line is comparable to the New Zealand defence budget.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@: I have already denied in the house, Mr. Speaker, the accuracy of that report.


John George Diefenbaker: I see. I have three more reports that will have to be denied. Mr. A. O. Tate, of the Toronto Star, a newspaper that seems to have an unusual capacity to think as the government is thinking, said this. I take it that this, too, is denied.
The Prime Minister pointed out that the Canadian people spent $200 million on only one phase of continental defence.
Then there are two others to the same effect. Miss Armstrong of the Toronto Telegram added that this person had been astounded by that information. There is nothing so secret about this except on the part of the Canadian government. There is a suggestion that there is something, oh so hush-hush, in what is being done in northern Canada. I have before me the Victoria Colonist of February 20 in which are set forth the plans of these defence lines. I am not going to particularize, but it shows where the D.E.W. line will be built, it shows the Alaska line, it shows the mid-Canada line and the "Pinetree" line. It gives particulars and details of each of these constructions and of what contribution is being made by Canada.
Furthermore, United States papers are setting out similar details. Remember the Prime Minister was at the conference. Apparently when he was asked as to what Canada's contribution could be he indicated that she could not go beyond the limits of her wealth. In support of the argument that we were stretched to the limit he told of the tremendous expenditures being made in connection with continental air defence.
Strangely enough in the United States the report is that these great facilities for defence, these eyes of the watchdogs of radar equipped with the bark of radio transmission
External Affairs
to all parts of the United States, are being built by the United States. The Chicago American of January 23 sets out in detail what is being done in northern Canada. Do you know what the source of the information was? They say in this house that one should not ask about this because of security reasons. The source of the information in the United States was the secretary of defence who told of the expenditures being made in Canada on continental air defence. He said that the expenditures would be from $500 million to $2,000 million in the next few years. He set forth in considerable detail what is being done in connection with these various fences that are being set up and also in connection with the central military agency which is being established to co-ordinate with the federal civil defence organization, the state civil defence agencies and other governmental agencies.
One does not want to pierce the security of this nation, but the Canadian people have the right to know with regard to the H-bomb what stage it has reached today, its destructiveness described so dramatically by the Prime Minister of Great Britain the other day when he tapped his dispatch box and said that the plutonium that could be confined within that box would enable any one nation which alone possessed the power that plutonium gives, to control the hearts, souls, and beings of mankind.
These pictures of the terror of the H-bomb have struck fear into the hearts of the people. They have given a new urgency to the need of the preservation of peace, as the minister said today. But he pointed out also another side that we do not know: Some trigger-happy Chinese communist, flushed with the victorious past of these crusaders for the building of that better world they dream of, might in a moment of weakness pull the trigger that would start the conflagration. It will then be too late for Canadians to know whether or not these lines of radar will give the security they are presumed to give.
There has been a tremendous change in the thinking of the government of Great Britain. The white paper does not disclose the emphasis on manpower in the armed forces. The 48 battalions of the reserve army in Great Britain are to be used, not as a military force but as an ancillary force for civil defence. Up to the present time we have no information as to whether, if the ultimate awfulness of H-bomb warfare comes, what has been done in the way of air defence will meet our expectations that out of this world disaster we will at least be assured the maximum of warning for the people of our nation.

External Affairs
In the United States, if press reports are correct, they have gone so far as to remove from the President the power and authority to make the declaration that this is indeed war. They have appointed General Chidlaw as air defence commander with headquarters near Denver. He has his fingers on all these radar warning screens in the north. He has the power to say "I declare a military emergency" and take immediate steps to defend the country.
I say again that no one wants to pierce the curtain of security. But that curtain of security should not be simply a means whereby the Canadian people are lulled into a sense of false security. Let the Prime Minister speak with that authority, as I said the other day, which his position gives in matters such as this and of such importance to the preservation of mankind.
When I hear people in this country casting slurs and sneers at the United States I wonder whether they have any realization of the world of today. Our relationships have not always been of the best. There have been disagreements; agreement in objective but disagreement in means, just as we sometimes find it difficult, separated by 18 feet of green carpet, to agree here.
With that same objective in mind it is interesting to go back to something which I came across the other day. Ordinarily I do not put quotations on Hansard, but this particular item does indicate the changes that have taken place in North America. In 1880 the New York Herald was conducting a campaign for the annexation of Canada to the United States for purely defensive reasons, and they said this:
The Canadian keeps 43,365 men armed to the teeth; he has much garrison and field artillery of the most destructive kind; his multitudinous cavalry horses say ha! ha! to the trumpets;-
They had cavalry horses then too.
-he calls up 14,000 new heroes every year for drill and is altogether a perilous enemy.
Those were the days when Canada had military service.
And at his back the British lion stands ready to roar most thunderously, supported by legions of regular troops, and capable of sending forth swarms of gunboats to shell the lake and river cities of the union, while his big men of war bombard New York, Boston and the cities of the Atlantic coast. The army of the union is small and scattered over the Indian territory-
Then it goes on to say:
Ogdensburg, Oswego, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago and a hundred smaller towns would endure bombardment, and perhaps be burned to the ground, before the Americans could make any defences worth talking about . . . The United States should strongly fortify the St. Lawrence frontier of New York and be ready to lay down the ruinous torpedo at a moment's notice.

That quotation from 1880, within the lifetime of many Canadians, represents an attitude of mind which time, common understanding, and a dedication to the principles of freedom have obliterated.
We have mutual devotion and trust. We are bound together in economic and military co-operation.
Those who speak loosely in what the minister described as unjust criticism, who always picture the United States as an aggressor, make no contribution today to the building of that unity without which there can be no survival. Here we are, side by side, common heirs of Westminster Hall and Independence Hall, with a common dedication to a liberty which Lincoln described as "Liberty not alone for the people of this country but hope to all the world for all future time".
If ever there was a time when we require a co-operative attitude it is now. I refer to a co-operative attitude wherein, while disagreeing, we can make clear, as the minister said Mr. Dulles made clear to him in personal conversation, our common objectives; wherein we can voice to friends our just criticism and in that way build a unity and develop a cooperative defence basis without which there can be no survival.
The nations in this partnership must retain absolutely their respective sovereignties over their own areas to join with the British commonwealth in singleness of purpose, strength and steadfastness. For without that dedication, freedom indeed may perish from the earth.
I sometimes think the major reason for the invidious attacks that are made on the United States by certain people is that the United States represents the greatest example of free enterprise which exists anywhere in the world.
Now I come to another part of the minister's speech. I should like to say a few words about it. That speech in Toronto should have been delivered in the House of Commons on the question of trade a long while ago. We on this side of the house have repeatedly pointed out that the attitude of the United States in raising quotas and limiting imports is not in keeping with our world responsibilities. On more than one occasion we indicated that interfering with our agricultural production machine in this country by the scheme of quota imposition was a denial of that spirit of co-operation which is necessary to the preservation of freedom.
The minister in that speech made blunt and unequivocal objections to the restrictions being imposed, but it is strange that strong terms were not used when agriculture was affected.

On the 8th of May the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) sent a strong message to the United States. Previously the tone of the messages that were sent, when agricultural products were interfered with, was, to say the least, lukewarm if not apathetic.
Today, the closing out of our oil products to the United States will not only have a serious consequence to the western oil industry but the restricting of imports to 250 million barrels a year to all countries of the world will weaken the defences of North America.
The United States must realize that it depends upon us as the safety deposit box of the minerals of North America from which they get all their asbestos and nickel; and, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) has often said, they depend on us for their manganese and in large measure their cobalt, 55 per cent of their lead, and 42 per cent of their copper, all of which commodities are necessary to the preservation of freedom through the instrumentality of strong armaments.
Doubtless the minister will have read the United States' newspaper reports of his address; scant attention was paid to that speech. Canada gave it widespread publicity; but apart from the Washington Post, the New York Times, the New York Herald and the Chicago Tribune there was very little reference to that speech which set out in clear terms a viewpoint with regard to our national survival that ought to have been expressed long ago. If it had been expressed three or four years ago it would have removed many of the criticisms that one hears today.
The GATT agreement with preservation of the restrictive rights now made legal cannot but result in artificial barriers being legalized in defence in a situation serious to the maintenance of unity and the preservation of our respective economic lives.
I feel that today Canada, with its resources, should be to a greater extent than ever before manufacturing these raw materials to provide the sinews of freedom and to ensure that these resources within Canada may be utilized for the benefit of freedom everywhere in the world among free nations.
In support of my view I take the 1952 Canada Year Book, which says in effect that we do not have today a balanced Canadian industrial economy.
It says:
Less dependence on export of primary raw materials and agricultural products and more processing of these resources in Canada-
External Affairs
Here I cease quoting-would bring about a balanced Canadian economy that is needed today.
That is certainly needed in the period in which we live. It is needed in order to make Canada strong and to provide those sinews for our joint defence with the United States in the event of war. On the other hand, should war not come, as we hope and pray it will not, at least Canada will be making its contribution to the building of power and strength so that negotiations based on strength may be the result.
I wish to discuss one other matter before I conclude. I was surprised that the minister, who was present in London at the prime ministers' conference, did not inform the house of some of the things that happened there. He bestowed upon the commonwealth just a passing glance. He said in effect that we must trust our friends, the United States and Britain, and one or two others. That is not enough. That kind of thing does not have any realization of the contribution that the British commonwealth makes in the world of today. I think one of the finest terse descriptions ever given of this commonwealth was given by one of the reporters from Canada, namely James McCook, who described the power of the commonwealth, lacking as it does any material organization. During the meeting in London it was possible, because of the vastness and the world-encircling nature of the commonwealth, to communicate with other peoples with ease. If a communication was to be made with the United States of America, that would be done by the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) or by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). If there was to be a communication with Chou En-lai to ascertain his views on any subject, Nehru was there to perform that task. If there was to be a communication with Molotov in the U.S.S.R., Sir Anthony Eden, by reason of his previous association, was in a position to make that communication.
There is one thing I should like to say here, and I digress for a moment. Today we have become so accustomed to the power and the authority of Sir Winston Churchill that we wonder how different things will be if he decides to resign at the apex of his power and his world authority. If he does resign let us remember that the British commonwealth has always had a leader available. That leader today, Sir Anthony Eden, was right in 1938; and in the Yalta revelations of the other day-the publication of which was as unjustifiable as it was unconscionable at this time-Eden stood out as the man at

External Affairs
Yalta who was right in the views that he expressed and the attitude that he held towards Stalin and those associated with him.
I mention the commonwealth because the Department of External Affairs publishes a magazine External Affairs purporting to tell the story of what happens, although it is restricted; in the superimposed fine print at the top it is stated that only government views are expressed. But in the last few years we have seen so many examples of that chiselling away at the British commonwealth relationship that it is interesting to find that the external affairs department has joined the others who are always preserving us from something or other. In the August issue they join in describing "Dominion day" as "Canada day". It used to be done with regard to the telephone book. That is the way they knocked "Dominion" out of the "Dominion of Canada". Now they decide to alter the name "Dominion day" to make it "Canada day". It is not a fearful thing but it is indicative. July 1 is not Canada day. Lest someone say that I overstate the situation, I am going to quote from a book entitled "On Being Canadian". In it at page 112, reference is made to this question of the British connection, and it is not brushed aside in the way that is sometimes followed by certain members of the government. The British connection is necessary, says the Right Hon. Vincent Massey at page 100 of this book. I am going to read this because it answers so many of those who today find it necessary to play down our relationship within the commonwealth. This is what Massey says:
I feel sure from my own experience-
And that experience was a great one, including that as representative to Washington and representative of Canada during the days of war in London. He continues:
[DOT]-that the fact that Canada appears on the International scene, not only as an important country on her own account, but also as a member of a great world association, lends her enhanced prestige. In the international world, prestige means influence.
As far as domestic affairs are concerned, there is a persistent illusion in the minds of some people that the British connection has somehow a limiting effect on our national growth; that the term "dominion" is derogatory to our national dignity.
Then he goes on to say this:
"Dominion" is only a word, and it has all but disappeared. In any event, it is important to consider things rather than their labels. In Canada we have certain institutions and traditions and characteristics which give us, whatever language we speak, our meaning as a separate country.
Then he says this, and it is extremely important in view of our relationship with the United States, fearful to some because they

picture the day when that economic and defence relationship will lead to other relationships:
Without the British connection these things would steadily evaporate and we should have less and less significance as an individual state. How long-
-says the Right Hon. Vincent Massey,
-would a Canadian republic maintain its individuality here in North America? The forms of our sovereignty might be retained, but we should be caught inexorably by the southward undertow and completely assimilated to American life. It is thus true to say that the British connection is essential to Canadian independence; we are the more Canadian for being British.
In those words, based on an experience of public service unequalled in our country, the Right Hon. Vincent Massey has not made statements that are not worthy of the serious consideration of Canadians in general and of parliament in particular.
Then what about Dominion day? The magazine External Affairs is afraid of that word "Dominion" in Dominion day. Dominion day was not changed by parliament. What does Mr. Massey say? At page 176 he says this:
If we abandon the old name, "Dominion day", for some new and meaningless phrase, as we nearly did officially in 1946, will it be because we have forgotten the significance of that moment eighty years ago when we took the first step towards full nationhood? In effect, we have long since outgrown the original meaning of the word "Dominion", but that offers no reason why we should not duly honour the anniversary of the occasion when we became a Dominion ... It would serve to remind us of our foundations and the influences which have given us shape.
I read this excerpt and place it on the record of the house because it must not be forgotten that, in the world of today, our position within the commonwealth is one that is based on self-interest and sentiment. When the Prime Minister was in London he must have been impressed by the intangible power for good that exists in a group of nations, joined in freedom and having the common concepts of freedom, consulting for the purpose of assuring the preservation of freedom.
Yes, the house would like to hear the story of that conference from the minister, not the Prime Minister, not in that rather uncertain way that he displayed a few weeks ago when he said that on a later occasion an opportunity would arise to discuss it, namely, during this debate. That conference brought honour to Canada, for it enabled the city of London to confer upon the Prime Minister the freedom of that city, an act of which every Canadian was proud. There are now two Canadians holding that honour, the

present Prime Minister, and the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, whose contributions to parliament and the country made him a worthy recipient of the honour and brought honour to Canada at the same time.
That conference was a clearing house of consultation and of wisdom. It was a catalyst of differences. It was joined in unity and objectives in the maintenance of freedom. Let us not forget that in the world of today there can be no international rights for Canada unless we recognize three things: first, our own country and its aims and purposes; second, our membership within the commonwealth of nations which makes us possess that prestige to which the Right Hon. Vincent Massey made reference when he spoke of the contribution that that membership makes to Canada in the world of today; finally, our membership in NATO. Sir, our aim and our purpose are to maintain and preserve peace. To that end we are dedicated.
The information I have asked for must not be concealed for the reason that it might hurt the feelings of Canadians in that all is not as well as the propaganda agencies would have us believe when it comes to our defence against the potential danger of the H-bomb and atomic warfare. Let us see the picture; let Canada know it; and, if the Canadian people realize the situation, apathy will give place to determination and the leadership of civil defence by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) will receive the inspiration that is necessary today, for with the exception of three or four of our cities few seem to realize the awful danger in which we stand and the necessity of urgency now in preserving ourselves through the instrumentality of civil defence and through the maintenance and assurance of our armaments and our armed forces.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that with respect to some of the remarks I am going to make this afternoon I shall not be accused of having an antiAmerican bias. I have never had bias against our good neighbour to the south. I harbour no ill feelings towards the people of that country, but this afternoon I am going to criticize some of the policies being pursued by the United States government in international affairs. I am very glad indeed that in his concluding remarks the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) paid tribute to our association with the commonwealth of nations. As I listened to him this afternoon I thought for a while that I was listening to one of the strongest pleas I have heard in the house at any time for acceptance of American policy almost without question.
External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: No suggestion of that.


Major James William Coldwell: I also want to say to the
minister that I thought his speech was not as good a speech as the one he made earlier in the session. I thought it was not as clear or as concise, and it was longer. I sometimes think that a speech cannot be judged by its length. I have had the pleasure of sitting in the gallery of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, the mother of parliaments, and I have heard questions as important as the ones we are discussing this afternoon discussed and concluded by the two principal speakers within the space of one hour for both of them. It seems to me we could learn something from the experience of the parliament of the United Kingdom in that respect.


Lester Bowles Pearson: And have a debate every few weeks.


Major James William Coldwell: I was very happy that this afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) discussed and told us something about the situation in Indo-China, Korea and so on. But as I listened to him this afternoon I decided I should probably confine my remarks to about three important matters which I think have been disturbing the people of Canada and the world in the past few weeks. The first of these of course is the statements that have been made in connection with the Chinese offshore islands and the island of Formosa, and the confusion which was caused after the speech made by the minister in Toronto when various interpretations were placed upon it. I think that the statements of the secretary of state of the United States, Mr. Dulles, when he was here underline rather than minimize the dangers of the present situation and the policies being pursued at this time by the United States.
Then, of course, the second matter of great concern to our country and the world at the present time is the series of experimental explosions that are being carried on in the United States and in Russia to ascertain the power in the use of nuclear weapons. Let us not forget that the same type of experiment is being undertaken in Russia. We do not know with what power and we do not know with what success, but we do know that they are now experimenting with the hydrogen bomb and the atom bomb in the same way as our great neighbour to the south. We are told by atomic scientists, as outstanding as those who deny the truth of the charges that these scientists make, that these explosions may endanger the future welfare of mankind, indeed, the future continuance on the earth of mankind. It seems to me we must pay some attention as a country to these

External Affairs
experiments and use our influence whenever we can to prevent this danger becoming more and more imminent.
The third matter, of course, to which the hon. member for Prince Albert also referred, is the publication of the American-taken notes, for such they were, of the Yalta conference and the statements that were made there and, indeed, the foreshadowing of further American-made notes of the conferences at Tehran and Potsdam.
The speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at Toronto contains expressions that at this time seem to me to have been inadvisable, and inadvisable under the circumstances because they could be subjected to interpretations which could have meant a change of policy in regard to the Formosan situation. I have the text of the minister's speech here, and he said:
Our position in this regard is something that we should never forget when we say, and correctly, that certain United States commitments, those, for instance, covering help to Chiang Kai-shek in Formosa and certain Chinese coastal islands, have not been accepted by us. But that is not the same thing as saying that they may not involve us. And it is certainly not the same as saying that they do not concern us.
In this paragraph the minister stated that United States commitments have not been accepted by Canada, and he repeated that, I am glad to say, this afternoon. But he did say that the commitments by the United States might involve us in the consequences of those commitments; and at other points in the address we have the same sort of thought. He said:
The neutrality of either of us, if the other were engaged in a major war in which its very existence were at stake, would be unthinkable.
Perhaps the minister is right. Perhaps if they were engaged in a major war it would involve us automatically, because of our geographical position with them. Nevertheless I do not think it is wise, in the state of opinion in the United States today, to make statements of that description and have them published in the press of that country. That can be construed as an assurance of our support should the United States be involved in what is, in effect, a major war on the mainland of China.
In the concluding portion of his address he went even farther when he said this:
In any major war we-
That is the United States and Canada.
-must be on the same side.
He then pointed out what he called the .*noral of this, saying:
This is not that we should be less Canadian, but that we should do everything we possibly can to censure that Canada's influence and Canada's
[Mr. Coldwell.j
policy, especially in its relations with the United States, will be directed toward the avoidance of conflict, political and economic. The same of course applies to the United States.
With that statement one can have no quarrel, and of it one can make no criticism. 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 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.
There is evidence that the government is taking a stronger attitude with regard to the economic relationships of our country with the United States. This in my opinion is being taken belatedly. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that this afternoon. It should have been done when the United States took unilateral action against some of our farm commodities. But the statement made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) yesterday is the kind of forthright statement that needs to be made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) regarding political matters in which we are directly interested and gravely concerned.
Judging by the statements by the United States secretary of state, Mr. Dulles, the issue in his opinion-and he stated it over and over again-is between the government of Chiang Kai-shek, which he calls the Republic of China, and which he placed before the world as a desirable ally, and that of the Peking government which he regards not only as a usurper but as an outcast.
I could quote stronger terms than Mr. Dulles used. How many Canadians or Americans understand why the Chinese people drove Chiang Kai-shek out of China? A few days ago I reread a speech made in this house by the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. MacKenzie), who was for some time in China with UNRRA. He told the house some of the reasons why the government was overthrown. Let me quote the hon. member as he is reported at page 1878 of Hansard for November 17, 1949:
While I know nothing about the personal integrity of Chiang Kai-shek, I understand from his friends that it is quite good; nevertheless I know that his government officials practised a policy of graft and corruption that was incredible to me. I have also visited many cities of China and met many merchants. I met Colonel Kearney of the United States army, who was stationed there. He told me about many things that happened in the Chinese army which to me were inconceivable. When I went to China I understood that it was one of the great democracies of the world. According to my understanding and appraisal of democracy, it was as far removed from the

principles and doctrine of democracy as it possibly could be. 1 could not conceive of conditions being as bad as they were. To me it was capitalism at its worst, where a few people controlled the whole policy and the rest lived in poverty and privation.
That was said by an hon. member who still sits in this house on the same side as the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the government, said by a man who was in China for some time with UNRRA. The hon. member could also have thrown some light on the entry of Chiang Kai-shek's forces into Formosa. But the record is clear. In many newspapers and other articles which have appeared in the public press during the last six or seven years, there have been references to this Simon Pure government of Chiang Kai-shek.
I,	myself, met a correspondent of a London newspaper who was an eyewitness of events to which I will refer. Let me hasten to say that he was not a communist, but was correspondent of a well-known London Liberal daily paper.
On February 28 of this year the Christian Science Monitor, which certainly is not a communist paper, but rather a religious one, published an article clearly outlining the history of Formosa. That article went on to say that when the Japanese were defeated in world war II, there was general islandwide rejoicing at the prospect of reunion with China. The moment the first nationalist troops put foot on the island, there was disillusionment. The nationalist soldiers and civilian autocrats under the government of Chen Yi, the general who took the troops there, acted as conquerors and seized the expropriated Japanese businesses from the Formosan people.
The discontent of the Formosans finally erupted in a protest march in February 1947, touched off by the brutality of government agents. The unarmed paraders were struck down by machine gun fire. The nationalist government, which at the time had an army of 2,000 troops in and around the capital, agreed to meet a small committee of leading Formosans to discuss reforms. They requested:
1.	Election by Formosans of their own magistrates and mayors, who would be empowered to control the police;
2.	Abolition of special armed police under government commissioners;
3.	Admission of Formosans to higher posts in the administration;
4.	The break-up of government monopolies.
These were moderate demands, indeed.
The government stalled for time, pretending to negotiate with the Formosans enabling them to call for reinforcements from the
External Affairs
mainland. They arrived on March 8. A reign of terror followed. Reliable estimates placed the number of Formosans massacred or missing as high as 10,000, including more than 700 high school and college students.
I might say that these are not my statements. These are statements by the Christian Science Monitor. It goes on to say that this is the grim record of Chiang Kai-shek's occupation of Formosa.
Who is the moral leper? That is the grim and terrible record of the so-called democratic government of Chiang Kai-shek, which the United States government supports and which, according to the minister, should a major war develop from that support, might involve Canada in hostilities.
The islands of Quemoy and Matsu are coastal islands blockading the two important mainland ports of Amoy and Foochow. They are no more useful as jumping-off places for an attack on Formosa than the mainland itself. How far is Quemoy from the mainland? It is three miles. How far is Formosa? It is about 125 miles. The Pescadores are in between, 80 miles from the mainland. Between Quemoy and the mainland there is at least one island that is under mainland control. In other words, Quemoy is a part of the mainland of China and to talk about a jumping-off place to be defended because it may be a jumping-off place for an attack on Formosa is a palpable attempt to deceive the rest of the world into believing something that is not correct.
I have no use for a communist government, but I do not want to see this country dragged into a war by the policies that are being pursued by the secretary of state of the United States. I followed those policies and it is about time that this government and this house spoke out against that drift to war through those policies and the threats of certain United States officials.
To use precision projectiles of atomic power against the mainland is one which, if put into effect, would forever destroy any hope of support of the democratic cause in which we should be interested, by the masses of the whole continent of Asia, and I include in this Burma and India, two countries of great importance in the struggle against communist imperialism. Let us not forget this. The first atomic weapons that were dropped were dropped on the coloured nation of Japan, an Asian nation. Drop some more of them on an Asian nation and then try to win the Asian nations to the democratic cause. The thing would be impossible, and yet we cannot win this struggle against communist imperialism without the Asian masses on our side.
In view of this, I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make another

External Affairs
speech in this house when this debate draws toward its end, where such speeches should be made, and to state categorically that we shall have no part in United States adventures on behalf of Chiang Kai-shek. In today's Gazette, Joseph Alsop, writing from Hong Kong, indicates that the United States cannot count on the support of the United Kingdom. He says that there is some doubt about the support of Canada. Perhaps I had better quote the paragraph:
But If a serious war starts over Quemoy and the Matsus, the United States cannot now count on the support of Britain, where the vital forward bases of the strategic air command are situated. There is even some doubt about the support of Canada, which is the vital key to what passes for the American air defence system. And for these reasons, no one can be quite sure that the Chinese and Soviets do not want a big war on this divisive issue.
It is about time that Canada took a very firm stand in relation to this whole adventure around Formosa. We are told that it is part of the United States defence system. Where does that defensive system extend? We have been told that it extends right from the Aleutians, right through Japan, right through Formosa, right through the Philippines, right down to New Zealand and Australia. As a matter of fact, apparently the only interest in the southeast Asian organization is that New Zealand and Australia are part of the defensive system of the continental United States. It is about time that we reappraised this whole thing and spoke out. There was no hesitation some years ago in this house on the part of members on the government side in criticizing British imperialism. Why not for a change 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. I say the minister should remove any doubt that may exist about Canada's attitude regarding this matter.
Last September I had the great privilege of being present at the Labour party's conference at Scarborough in England and of hearing the Right Hon. Clement Attlee and other members of the British Labour party who visited China make their report on the visit. May I say that before Mr. Attlee went, Canadian newspapers said that here was a man who would go to China unprejudiced in its favour and would bring back a realistic and objective report. I heard that report. The same evening I had the opportunity of spending some time with Mr. Attlee and with Mr. Morgan Phillips, the secretary of the Labour party, and others who accompanied Mr. Attlee on that trip. Several points

emerged. First, the new government in China had abolished corruption in government and, in Mr. Attlee's opinion, to use his own words, this was "a very, very great achievement." He said that they got that tribute "not from Chinese sources but from people with a long knowledge of the east." He said, "European people of our own sort who have been more than 50 years there. They have for the first time got an honest government. I believe they are a government of idealists." That was his considered opinion, and he is a former prime minister of Great Britain, a man of whom the papers said that when he came back he would bring an objective report. I am quoting directly from him. He paid tribute to the manner in which they had cleaned up old sinks of iniquity. They had introduced a new alphabet, reducing the original 36,000 characters to fewer than 1,200. Seventy million children are in school and attempts are being made to remove illiteracy in the adult population. He emphasized the importance of a settlement with China because of the influence of Chinese nationals, not nationalists, most of whom are non-communists throughout the whole of south Asia, and who jointly resent the manner in which the Chinese masses are being retarded by the western powers.
He suggested what I suggested long ago, that Chiang Kai-shek and his bloodthirsty warlords-yes, bloodthirsty warlords they proved themselves to be when they went to Formosa-should be exiled from Formosa and such of his followers as wish should be allowed to return to the mainland, and then let Formosa be neutralized under the United Nations.
This afternoon the minister said that when we talk about these things we forget the Formosan people. I have not forgotten them this afternoon. I have told of their terror, and I say that the sooner that that dictatorial group is removed from Formosa and Formosa placed under United Nations trusteeship- yes, I would support guaranteeing to them neutrality by the United Nations, not by a single power-the sooner shall we begin to build for peace in Asia.
Canada should support the removal of Chinese nationalist representatives from the United Nations and from the security council and support the seating of the effective government of the Chinese people. Sir Winston Churchill and Sir Anthony Eden recognized that effective government years ago. They supported the Labour party's recognition on January 1, 1950. They have been in power most of the time since then, and they still recognize that government as the effective government of the Chinese mainland, the

government in power on the Chinese mainland. We recognize a mere rump; that is all. I say that Canada at the United Nations should support that inclusion of the government of China and we should make an effective effort to recognize the government that is in power in China.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act	for	the	relief	of Daisy	Ruth Kirk
Stanistreet.
An act for the relief of Irene Christina Edwards Mackay.
An act for the relief of Barbara Elinor Richardson Jones.
An act for the relief of Wira Pushkar Teresht-shenko.
An act	for	the	relief	of Stella	(Stephania)
Burnatowska Holowaty.
An act for the relief of Harry Evert Finlayson.
An act for the relief of George James Nan-greaves.
An act for the relief of Carmela Lanza Morash.
An act for the relief of Meyer Francis Doyle.
An act for the relief of Julia Mary Collen Dwyer Rose.
An act for the relief of Bela Koschitza Brawer-man.
An act for the relief of Maxine Samuels Resseguier.
An act for the relief of Ginette Monique Cornu Lebegue.
An act for the relief of Eugen Hartberg.
An act for the relief of Joseph Pierre Emile Jasmin Rheaume.
An act for the relief of Elizabeth Jane Marcelin Belanger.
An act for the relief of Hugh McCrone Duns-muir.
An act for the relief of Hazel Winifred Edwards Welcher.
An act for the relief of Joan Audrey Baur Walker.
An act for the relief of Pauline Alice Leduc Sponagle.
An act for the relief of Lillian Greenberg Seligman.
An act for the relief of Marie Antoinette Demers Vigeant.
An act for the relief of Yoneyuki Watanabe.
An act for the relief of Leslie Sutcliffe.
An act for the relief of Rita Ursule Labadie Huot.
An act for the relief of Evangeline N. Rodinos Zolotas.
An act	for	the	relief	of	Maria Lutz Kaczmarek.An act	for	the	relief	of	Clare Taylor Belanger.An act	for	the	relief	of	Jean Claude Robitaille.An act	for	the	relief	of	Ida Meitin Wooden.
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Fleur-Ange Francoeur
Therrien.
An act for the relief of Maria Christina Vettore
Austin.
An act for the relief of Roland Lefebvre.
An act for the relief of Augustine Denonville Leclere.
An act for the relief of Mary Theresa Mc-Sheffrey Richard.
An act for the relief of Pierrette Marsan Short.
An act for the relief of Greta Irene Kokko Marchand.
An act for the relief of Yolande Segatore Grandillo.
An act for the relief of Annie Laker Gillen.
An act for the relief of Juliette Bertha Langlois Miller.
An act for the relief of Arthur Johnston.
An act for the relief of Bela Antal Kelecsenyi.
An act for the relief of Joseph Roger Gerard Doucet.
An act for the relief of Elsie Amelia Armistice Wood Lavoie.
An act for the relief of Joseph Rene Romeo Lefrance.
An act for the relief of Gweneth Leslie Clarke Atkinson.
An act for the relief of Muriel Clare Wilson Hart.
An act for the relief of Violet Doris Hubbard MacGregor.
An act for the relief of Christina Mellis Campbell Squires.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Katharine Hamilton
Ellis Bishop.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Sheila Kathleen Mc-
Naughton Best.
An act for the relief of Pearl Mendelson Markus.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Mary Leona Dalton
Dawe.
An act for the relief of Ethel Tietlebaum Segal.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Sheila Mary Power
Stone.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Vera Grace Westley
Stewart.
An act for the relief of Freda Margery Turton Fellerin.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Sieglinde Rosa Wolf
Coss.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Marie Vina Lebel
Duhamel.
An act for the relief of Florence Pearl Loader Varden.
An act for the relief of Ethel Elizabeth Smith Tero.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Elizabeth Annabel
Clouston Grand jean.
An	act	for	the	relief	of Miriam Rabinovitch
Yampolsky, otherwise known as Miriam Rabinovitch Pollack.
An act for the relief of George Angus Robinson.
An act for the relief of Gerald Willy Moore.
An	act	for	the	relief	of	Desneiges Primeau
Gagnon.
An act for the relief of Gladys Krassner Garoff.
An act for the relief of Margaret Aitken Robertson Comis.
An act for the relief of Marie Rose Barsey De Board.
An act for the relief of Maureen Theresa May Baker Reed.
An act for the relief of Henry Schoen.
An act for the relief of Harold Archie Donaghy.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Ellis Oakes.
An act for the relief of Rose Blum Brenner.
An act for the relief of Georges Ovide Normand.
An act for the relief of Marjory Grace Darling Downey Picktell.
An act for the relief of Francis Joseph Ellis.
An act for the relief of John McKinnell.
[Stage Direction]
The Royal Assent
An act for the relief of Ada Garland Skakle
Campbell.
An act for the relief of Shirley Elizabeth Saul Hutchison.
An act for the relief or Rotha Dodgson Webb.
An act for the relief of Barbara Norma Demaine Davies.
An act for the relief of Reta Muriel Hadden Moffit.
An act for the relief of Meta Avard Wheatley Griffin.
An act for the relief of Emma Melite Latvaityte Vairogs.
An act for the relief of Marie Jeanne D'Arc Marcelle Mernier Lemieux.
An act for the relief of Lois Audrey Jemima Patch Howell.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Izenberg Lenetsky.
An act	for	the	relief	of	George Reilly Hunter.An act	for	the	relief	of	Donald William Downie.An act	for	the	relief	of	Rita Barlatti Devlin.An act	for	the	relief	of	Ruby Kitts Shea.
An act for the relief of Margaret Pearl McNamara Rowlatt.
An act for the relief of Mabel Kinghorn Marshall.
An act for the relief of Shirley Norah Farrar Mizener.
An act for the relief of Jane Schubert Clark Bernard.
An act for the relief of Irene Joan Fabian Jefford.
An act for the relief of Lois Silby Walker Torunski.
An act for the relief of Lillian Dorothy Menzies Drennan.
An act for the relief of Henry Edwin Lasnier.
An act for the relief of Elsa Kremer Ellmaurer.
An act for the relief of Christine Bennie Kelly Mooney.
An act for the relief of Shirley Patricia King Craddock.
An act for the relief of Nomi Meijerowicz Goldenstein.
An act for the relief of Edith Dora Hyndman Ross.
An act for the relief of Irene Annetta Thomas Bromby.
An act for the relief of Arthur Edmund Oliver.
An act for the relief of Joseph Zawiski.
An act for the relief of Mary Jagiello Kaczynski.
An act for the relief of Eleanor Honor Connolly Sutcliffe.
An act for the relief of Marie Laurenza Suzanne Bolduc Hawkins.
An act for the relief of Daniel Joseph MacLean.
An act for the relief of Berthe Montpetit Goupil.
An act for the relief of Joseph Albert Roland Archambault.
An act for the relief of Evelyn Held Schulman.
An act for the relief of Antoni Dmysz.
An act for the relief of Eunice Levine Yelin.
An act for the relief of Joyce Hodkin Gilhooly.
An act for the relief of Pauline McDonald McDerment.
An act for the relief of Velma May Robinson Macaulay.
An act for the relief of Mary McDonald Gauthier.
An act for the relief of Andrew Henry Pytel.
An act for the relief of James Wong, otherwise known as Yon Hong Ark.
An act for the relief of Ruth Nathan Finkelman.
An act for the relief of Richard Robert Tomlinson.
An act for the relief of Sheila Elsie Clarkson Flintoft.
An act for the relief of Joseph Edouard Alexandre Brunelle.
An act for the relief of Ruth Evans Silver.
An act for the relief of Mania Rissman Neftin.
An act for the relief of Lucien Gagnon.
An act for the relief of John William Newton.
An act for tne relief of Rita Forest Leblanc.

An act for the relief of Marcelle Topping
Paradis.
An act for the relief of John Edward Foran. An act for the relief of Evelyn Woolls Gallagher McDougall.
An act for the relief of Edward Satel.
An act for the relief of Mollie Litvack Rabino-vitch.
An act for the relief of Nora Elizabeth Wolverson Powell.
An act for the relief of Hazel Miller Clark.
An act for the relief of Zofia Janina Hurny Slesicki.
An act for the relief of Carmen Cortez Leigh Pitt.
An act for the relief of Paraskevy Moshonas
Moshonas.
An act for the relief of Mary Lee Wilson Couttie.
An act Colucci.	for	the	relief	Of	Giacinta VillarosaAn act Pearson.	for	the	relief	of	Irene Dora Baker
An act for the relief of Gisela Kunz Cobel.
An act for the relief of Aline Rousseau Laporte.
An act for the relief of Dorothy Arlin Wintrobe.
An act for the relief of Hazel Irene McKay Puttee.
An act for the relief of Demetra Denis Varverikos Kotsos.
An act for the relief of Therese Deschamps Pare.
An act for the relief of Beatrice Edith Paige Bouchard.
An act for the relief of Sheila Edith Emily Little Staniforth.
An act for the relief of Elias Helakos, otherwise known as Louis Childs.
An act for the relief of Albina Legault Desjardins.
An act for the relief of Maia Piibe Paul.
An act for the relief of John Russell Watt.
An act for the relief of William Watson Southam.
An act for the relief of Marie Joyce Kane Grant.
An act for the relief of Anton Josef Cermak.
An act for the relief of Myriam Micheline Weil Goldschmied.
An act respecting the Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.
An act respecting the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Pembroke.
An act to amend the Winnipeg and St. Boniface Harbour Commissioners Act.
An act to amend the Criminal Code.
An act to amend the National Harbours Board Act.
An act to amend the Representation Act.
An act to amend the Financial Administration Act.
At six o'clock the house took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, before the
dinner recess I was suggesting that the time had come when the alien government now in Formosa should be expelled from that island. I said that in my opinion, and in the opinion of many others, it was a dictatorship which had achieved power there by means which could not be described as other than bloody and cruel.
During the dinner recess I happened to be looking at some newspapers and I read that the moderator of the Presbyterian Church of Canada, Dr. J. L. W. McLean, has just

returned from Formosa and he is reported in the Victoria newspapers. I am going to refer particularly to the report which appeared in the Victoria Times of March 12, in which he stated:
On his return from Formosa Dr. McLean called that world trouble spot a police state. "There is no open discussion," he said. Police were in evidence everywhere and people were very careful in what they said. In Formosa during the Tachens crisis, he said there seemed more alarm on this continent than in Formosa itself.
The nationalist claim to liberate the mainland was "just propaganda", he said.
The nationalist government was made up of mainland people who had fled to the island. Thus the government was resented by most Formosans, he said.
In another report he went on to say that the government could not exist but for the support of the United States.
I wish to put one more quotation on the record, from the speech which I heard Mr. Attlee make at Scarborough. May I just say in passing that naturally I am quoting these statements out of their context. Mr. Attlee and those who were with him are under no illusions as to the present government of China being a dictatorship; I refer of course to the mainland of China. They are under no illusions that that government, as is the case with all communist governments, has at times been overbearing and cruel towards its opponents. But there is a distinction in his opinion between the situation in China and the situation that has been found in some other communist-dominated countries.
He says this:
As to the direction in which China will move, that is anybody's guess. There is a long tradition of civilization in China going back thousands of years to days when we were barbarians. The impact of communism on an ancient civilization like that is quite different from its impact on Russia, which was after all the most backward of all the European family. I cannot think that the Chinese with their great traditions will fall for the cruder forms of communism. Indeed, I think there is every sign to show that they apply their communism with a good deal of elasticity. You may say in its early days, it is anybody's guess how they will go. There is undoubtedly a considerable degree of toleration in matters of religion; that is a tradition in China. It may go the other way; at present there is a certain amount of it.
Then he adds:
I do think that we in this country, who can take perhaps a more detached view than the people in the United States, should do all we can to try and bring together these peoples of the east and west.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the government of Canada to speak out while there is time to speak out and to support the establishment in Formosa of a Formosan government elected by the Formosan people 50433-150
External Affairs
with the island neutralized by the United Nations Organization and not dominated by any one of the great powers.
I mentioned the Yalta situation and the transcript of the American-made notes of that conference. Let me remark that this was done under the strong protests and later the reluctant acquiescence of Sir Winston Churchill. May I say that if off-the-record remarks and discussions at international conferences are made public, then there is a real danger that those attending will exercise such care in what they say that the results of such conferences may be seriously interfered with. To publish at this time, when conditions have changed so completely, remarks and discussions made under quite different circumstances, and for what appears to be purely political and partisan purposes in the United States, is, as I have said before, a shocking performance. I shall leave it at that.
I mentioned the third matter which is causing grave concern among all thinking people and that is the nuclear tests which are being made in the United States and Russia at this time. Scientists, of course, disagree as to what their effects may be; no one knows. But one group of eminent atomic scientists warn that the dangers are imminent and grave indeed.
Consequently, I appeal to the government again to do what it can and I think that Canada can do much because, after all, Canada is represented on the United Nations atomic committee along with the United States, Great Britain and Russia.
We should do all we can to bring about a conference of the powers which have nuclear weapons with a view first to ending these dangerous experiments. For my part, I believe the control of the manufacture and use of these weapons must ultimately be a part of a larger disarmament conference or agreement.
I realize that disarmament is inextricably linked with the settlement of political differences. The western powers said that a further conference of the great powers must await the ratification of the London and Paris agreements. Whatever views there may be of these agreements, the fact remains that France appears to be about to make the final ratification without doubt. Other countries involved have no further hesitation and hence a four-power conference should be called immediately if for no other purpose than to endeavour to negotiate an agreement regarding nuclear weapons. As I said, I would wish to see effective measures of disarmament as a part of a general agreement for the negotiated settlement of outstanding disputes and difficulties.

External Affairs
When I say that, I am under no illusion that such negotiations could be accomplished overnight. I realize it would take a considerable length of time and might have to be done piecemeal, little by little and bit by bit.
In urging this Canada could perform a very useful service in publicly and explicitly taking the lead in calling for such a conference followed, of course, by the implementation of the United Nations charter in regard to security and general disarmament arrangements. But in spite of what the minister said this afternoon I still think-and I think it strongly as do many others-that the solution of the present world problems will not be found in the development of nuclear weapons, the building of armaments or the stretching of strategic bases from one end of the world to the other in order to contain communism.
I think that the only way in which communist propaganda and aggression can be met will be in a field other than the field of military containment and organization. The United Nations Organization has done much in this regard already. The world health organization has done much to improve the standards of health and the elimination of tropical diseases which have afflicted Asian and African countries-yes, and some parts of Europe and South America-for generations. This is the kind of thing that will gain support for the western democracies. Yet the amounts we have appropriated, when compared with our expenditures on military defence, are pitiful and quite inadequate. The hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon put on the record some very compelling figures as to our inadequate contribution both to the Colombo plan and to the technical aid of the United Nations. Another fund that I think has done much to win support to the democratic cause is the children's fund of the United Nations. That is supported, of course, by public national-or international, if you like-contributions as well as voluntary contributions. All these activities have done much to win support. Of course, I could enumerate many other projects of the same kind.
After all, if we are to win this war, the cold war if you like,-the battle for men's minds across the world-we need far greater effort to remove the causes of disease, famine and poverty and to raise the standards of living everywhere in the world. Communism is born and bred mainly in depressed areas, not only in foreign lands but in our own land. Of course it is true that among the most active of communists are often men and women with, I think, mistaken ideals who,

impatient at the slow development of humanitarian policies in our midst, believe that revolutionary movements offer the quickest and best hope of success. Needless to say, they are blind to the suffering which violent revolution inevitably involves, whether it is in China, Russia or any other country where these violent revolutions occur; and they continue not only during the period of the revolution itself but during the longer period of rehabilitation which follows these social upheavals.
So I say the response of the non-communist world must be made more forthright in the fields of economic and social progress. I join in the plea that was made this afternoon for a greater appropriation for these world needs. I am not talking about a billion dollars from Canada but I am saying that, instead of the paltry $20 million or $25 million subscribed by all the nations of the world for technical aid in the United Nations, a billion dollars would be insufficient to meet the world's needs in the years to come. Indeed, the new plan for the raising of capital for backward countries envisages $250 million for development.
When I think of technical aid, I am thinking not only of the one sort of technical aid by the kind of subscription that we have been making through the United Nations to that organization's special fund but of other funds as well to the extent of a billion dollars or so in all. So I say that with quite inadequate funds the United Nations Organization for technical aid has been doing a remarkable job. When one realizes, as I have said before, that the united nations together are subscribing just over $20 million a year for this purpose and when one contrasts that amount with the amount that we are collectively spending on military defence, running into hundreds of billions of dollars, we can realize what might be done if our appropriation for technical aid were proportionate in some degree to our expenditure on other-and, let me say at once, necessary-military defence.
Last autumn I had the opportunity of being in the Middle East in the state of Israel for a couple of weeks and in that state, which is led by a highly intelligent and devoted group of men and women, I saw a good many evidences of what can be done with outside capital aid and technical assistance. The draining of swamps and the ending of malaria, the engineering aspects of water utilization, irrigation and hydroelectric projects, and experiments in the production of new crops like cotton in that area have all been to some extent assisted by technicians sent by the technical aid division of the United Nations and financed, of course, largely by Jewish bond drives and gifts from abroad.

I might say that Canadian contributions to United Nations technical aid are now $1,500,000, a relatively paltry sum when the need of the world is considered.
Then, of course, there is the Colombo plan. That is the most interesting project in which we are engaged. Upon the success of technical aid, the Point Four plan of the United States and the Colombo plan, I believe, depends the victory of democracy over communist propaganda in southeast Asia. The Colombo plan originated in 1950 and has since then been extended beyond the confines of the commonwealth countries of southeast Asia to take in neighbouring states, and the United States has become involved.
This afternoon the hon. member for Prince Albert mentioned the extremely low standard of living of the people in this area. The people in this area-600 million of them- have annual incomes of about $50 or $60 a year. The people there live on a subnormal diet averaging about 12 ounces of cereals per day or less than 2,000 calories. Those are official statements. According to medical experts, this is regarded as a minimum for survival and, except in special circumstances, few persons in North America are reduced to such a low calorie diet. Yet, before the war these areas produced a third of the world's fats and edible oils, three-quarters of the world's tea, nearly all the world's natural rubber and many coarse textile materials such as jute, not to mention cotton. These resources were the monopoly of western companies.
Asians understandably believe that they were thus exploited to produce wealth for the western world. So I think we are under obligation to do everything we can to improve the standards of living and to make amends for the exploitation of earlier years. So I say if we are to retain the friendship and support of these people there is the necessity for rapid improvement in the standards of living. I am not suggesting that we make, as is sometimes said, great gifts of food and so on to these people though sometimes famine requires them. The main thing that we must do is to enable them to feed themselves and to build up their own economy, and to train young men and women and to assist them to do all that is possible, when they go back to their countries, to enable their countries to become prosperous in the years ahead.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to make these few points today. But what I have said towards the conclusion of my remarks is what I should like to emphasize most, that if we are going to win this battle for men's minds we are not going to win it on the military fields. One of the disappointments I had 50433-1501
External Affairs
when the United States secretary of state was here quite recently was that he seemed to emphasize the problems facing the world rather as a war minister than as one who was interested in matters of the kind about which I have just been talking. While defence may be and is necessary, nonetheless what our people need to learn most is that we have got to do everything we can to win the people of Asia to our side, and that means that we have got to assist them to improve their standards of life and eliminate the seed beds of communism; for poverty, misery and want are the seed beds in which subversive ideas thrive.


Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, the minister as usual gave a most interesting and thought-provoking speech this afternoon. There are quite a number of things I should like to have time to comment upon but I am afraid that my task has been made a little different as a consequence of one of the speeches at least made this afternoon. Therefore I shall have to refrain from commenting on the minister's speech to any great extent except to say I had hoped that in the course of his address he might have had something to say about the Middle East because there are some problems there which have got to be solved if peace is to be brought to that part of the world and if the security of one of the great trade routes of the world is to be maintained. However, perhaps in the course of his rebuttal he may have a chance to say something about it then.
I should like to comment briefly on the speech made this afternoon and this evening by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, (Mr. Coldwell). I think it was a speech which will give comfort to the enemy. I think it was a speech that paralleled to a very great degree the communist line.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, nonsense, nonsense,
nonsense!


An hon. Member:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely.


Major James William Coldwell: More Social Credit smearing again.


Solon Earl Low: I listened to my hon. friend, and I could not help thinking that he was very sincere in what he said. I am not criticizing his sincerity for one moment, and I believe that he believed every single thing he said. But that does not for one second mitigate the influence that it will have upon a great many people because they have not the facts at hand against which to measure the things that he did say. I was very much interested in the glowing picture that he painted of what the visionary Attlee

External Affairs
reported as the accomplishments of the red government in China after a visit of some two weeks there, seeing, I suppose, what the Chinese government wanted him to see.
But in the course of telling about these things and painting that very glowing picture of what red China had accomplished in the social and economic fields and at the same time condemning Chiang Kai-shek for brutality, my hon. friend said nothing whatever about the millions of their own flesh and blood whom the communist regime in China have liquidated since they took over in 1949. Not a single word did he say. He made no mention at all about the brutal treatment of American and British prisoners of war in China. He said nothing about the brain washing and the forced admissions by torture of things that were false from prisoners of war in that country. That, of course, I suppose is honest government.
My hon. friend did not say anything either about the aggressions of the red Chinese, the aggression in South Korea, and after the years of killing, massacre and aggression in that area the refusal of red China to countenance free elections in Korea and try to bring about by honest effort the unity of that country under a government of their own. I suppose that is honest government. He said nothing whatsoever about Chinese induced and supplied aggressions in Indo-China and the terrific suffering of many hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people in that land as a consequence. Nor did he say anything about the recent threats of the red regime to conquer Formosa, to take it by force. I suppose all of these things are to be overlooked.
I do not for one moment condone any brutal misdeeds of Chiang Kai-shek and the members of his government, but the fact that they may have committed such brutal misdeeds does not for one second excuse the red regime for committing hundreds of times as many even if they have made some progress in social and economic fields. In the course of his address this afternoon the hon. member failed utterly to distinguish between Chiang Kai-shek, on the one hand, and the strategic importance of Formosa in this very difficult time, on the other-not for one moment. That is exactly the kind of confusion that the communists of the world are trying to spread. That is what they want the people of the world to believe, that the two are one and that when you condemn Chiang Kai-shek you have to condemn Formosa and its possession for the time being by forces other than those of red China.

My hon. friend did not mention the fact either that from the best information available the Formosans themselves are in mortal fear of being "liberated" by red China, mortal fear of the kind of liberation they could expect from the mainland. The best information we can possibly get, the most reliable, is that they are free people and are determined to remain free. It is because of the fact that the hon. member failed to mention these things but painted the other picture of a black and brutal Chiang Kai-shek that I say his speech will be interpreted as giving comfort to the communists who are trying their level best to win the battle of men's minds by deluding them, leading them to believe a lie.
It seems that these days most of the discussion of international affairs centres around the policies of the United States. I suppose one could expect that this would be inevitable because of the position of leadership occupied by the United States in the world today, but I think that is reassuring when we review the changes that have taken place, especially in United States Far Eastern policy, since those bleak days of surrender to Russia and communism in the latter part of the Roosevelt and the first part of the Truman administrations. The world will be a long time recovering from the blunders and appeasements of those days, if it ever recovers.
On December 23, 1949, Mr. Acheson, secretary of state in President Truman's cabinet, sent to all overseas state department officials a secret memorandum that read as follows:
American criticism of American policy over Formosa has come largely because of a mistaken popular conception of its strategic importance to the United States defence in the Pacific. The loss of the island is widely anticipated, and the manner in which civil and military conditions there have deteriorated under the nationalists adds weight to the expectation. All available material should be used to counter false impressions that the retention of Formosa would save the Chinese nationalist government, or that its loss would seriously damage American interests. Formosa has no special military significance.
That seemed to be the official American attitude in 1949, and anyone who takes the trouble to examine the implications of the whole statement will recognize in it the same ideas that the communist imperialists skilfully attempt to use to delude the American people today, and other free peoples of the world. Communists and their sympathizers are still trying to mislead the peoples of the free world with these ideas, and their purpose is to make it possible for red China to take Formosa and thus to cut the Pacific defence line.

After the close of world war II China became the centre of intensive communist activity and intrigue. Moscow-trained agents, communist agents, led bands of guerrillas in open violence and civil war against the constituted government of that country. Deluded or perfidious men in high places in America and other countries and, I might say, in some of the great newspapers of the world, went along with the communists in grossly misrepresenting the situation in China as an agrarian revolution-a peaceful, agrarian revolution, and to condition the American mind to accept the downfall of Chiang Kai-shek and his nationalist government without any question.
They did their work mighty well, and the people of America were made to believe a lie. And in their deluded state of mind they allowed China and its 400 million freedom-loving people to be pushed-and I say "pushed" advisedly-into the hands of the communists.
Chiang Kai-shek and his anti-communist forces were defeated in China in 1949 very largely because of treachery. They retired to Formosa, which was an island held for quite a number of years by the Japanese, who prior to world war II had spent vast amounts of money and effort to make Formosa the most important air and naval base in the western Pacific. Today there are on the island of Formosa and on the nearby islands nearly
600,000	anti-communist Chinese soldiers who are friendly to the western world. To keep up their morale for long years of absence from their mainland homes, families and interests is a big problem. But they represent the only available anti-communist Asiatic force in all the Pacific area. That is something we have to keep in mind. No one can identify that 600,000 with the government of Chiang Kai-shek and any treachery Chiang Kai-shek may have committed.
The sovereignty of Formosa rests in the hands of the 48 nations which signed the peace treaty with Japan in 1951, and Chiang Kai-shek governs the country on their behalf. There has been a great change in American attitude toward Formosa since Mr. Acheson sent that secret telegram in 1949 I told you about suggesting that Formosa was of no special military significance. By June 27, 1950, President Truman had evidently come to realize that Mr. Acheson's appraisal was wrong, because on that date he made this statement by way of an explanation of United States interest in Formosa:
In these circumstances the occupation of Formosa by the communist forces would be a direct threat to the security of the Pacific area and to United States forces performing their lawful and necessary functions in that area.
External Affairs
Not long after that statement was made General Douglas MacArthur, who probably knew more about Pacific defence than any man living, discussed the military significance of Formosa in a message to the national encampment of veterans of foreign wars. Speaking of the United States chain of Pacific island defences he had this to say:
Our line of defence is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations; but properly maintained would be of invincible defence against aggression. If we hold this line, we may have peace-lose it and war is inevitable.
May I point out here that Formosa is one of the key parts of the chain of Pacific island defences. General MacArthur made this further statement on May 3, 1951:
I believe that from our standpoint we practically lose the Pacific ocean if we give up or lose Formosa. Formosa should not be allowed to fall into red hands.
There was no equivocation about that. It is natural for us, of course, in the light of those statements, to ask how safe Canada would be if the United States lost the Pacific. It is most natural. Today Secretary of State Dulles and President Eisenhower are making it quite clear the United States believes Formosa and the nearby islands are of tremendous strategic importance to the defence of America, which of course includes Canada. They differentiate between Formosa and the government of Chiang Kai-shek, which it is clear some other people do not.
Last December the United States completed a treaty with Chiang Kai-shek known as the Formosa defence treaty. It was ratified by the United States Senate on February 9 of this year. Under that treaty Formosa becomes a defence post, a part of the United States Pacific defence system. The United States has pledged to protect Formosa and the Pescadores islands even to the extent of an all-out fight for them, if it is necessary. It is expected that the United States will build land and air bases at some time in the near future. The treaty says nothing at all about Matsu, Quemoy and Nanchi, the islands still in the hands of the Chinese nationalists guarding the entrance to mainland harbours.
Most of the controversy about Far Eastern policy at the present time seems to revolve around what should happen in connection with these islands, and a good deal of foolish talk goes on about it. But one fact should be kept in mind above everything else about those islands. They are important to red China only as a jumping-off place for an attack against Formosa. There is nothing certain today of course about what the United States will do, whether in fact she wili

External Affairs
attack, if any attempt is made by red China to take them by force. However, I think it is clear the United States feels that continued nationalist possession of the islands is important to the maintenance of morale of the nationalist Chinese troops. From what Mr. Dulles said while he was in Ottawa, and in recent speeches, one would judge that the United States government is giving most careful and earnest thought to what should be done about Matsu and Quemoy. If they think they are of special strategic importance and of outstanding value from the point of view of morale, then it may be that the United States will be prepared to fight for them if red China attempts to take them by force. It appears that the Americans are using the utmost effort in dealing with this delicate situation, and I think they are giving evidence that they will use every effort to avoid military conflict. I sincerely hope they will. But of one thing we can be sure, and that is if there is any show of weakness on the part of the United States, the reds will be alert to that weakness and will certainly make a move to take the islands by force.
What about Canada's position? What should we do in this situation? Well, it has been brought out here this afternoon-and the minister has made it quite clear in other speeches he has made recently-that Canada is not committed any more than to take whatever action may be decided upon by the United Nations itself. If the United Nations decides to take some action, then I suppose we would be committed to do what we can. The United States seems to be the only power committed to the defence of Formosa and the Pescadores. I think it our duty of course to remain calm and- level-headed, to make our views known to the United States, whatever we may think, and to issue a word of counsel and caution when we feel that these things are necessary, but all with a view to being helpful to the United States in the dreadful responsibility that she has undertaken alone in the leadership of the nations of the free world.
It would be a mistake for us to engage in bitter criticism, because that would simply give comfort to the enemy, destroy the unity of the western allies and weaken the position of the United States. I join the minister in what he said this afternoon in expressing gratification that the final decision about Quemoy and Matsu rests on a man of vision, honesty and ability, a man of President Eisenhower's stature. In the final analysis, that decision must be a military one. I do not see that it can be anything else. We think that Canada should always keep clearly

in focus the rights and wrongs of these international problems, and should never allow them to be obscured by fear or prejudice. We should try to assess the situation against the background of communist global strategy, but I think we have to take the position on them that will be best calculated to prevent the consummation of communist plans for world domination. If we take that position it possibly will be right.
We believe that the United States should be given moral support in their determination to prevent Formosa and the Pescadores from falling into the hands of red China, not because we feel any desire at all to protect Chiang Kai-shek and his government but because of the importance of Formosa for the defence of the free people of southeastern Asia, and even of America. We believe that when the communists have given evidence, indisputable evidence by deeds and not by mere words, that they are really anxious to establish peace in the world and they are prepared to discontinue their aggression, then the people of Formosa should be given the right to determine their own future.
We are firm believers in the principle of self-determination, and we are definitely opposed to using any country and its people as pawns in the game of international power politics. We believe that there has been too much of that sort of thing in times past. Too much human suffering has resulted. We think that to sacrifice the freedom of millions of freedom-loving Formosans to appease the communists would be grossly inhuman as well as criminal, and furthermore it would be useless and would violate a sacred trust. We believe that the Canadian people should resist the propaganda of the communists and their sympathizers on the Formosan question, as on all others, because we are convinced that they are trying to delude us and lull us into a sense of false security.
We find ourselves in fairly full agreement with the United States' Far Eastern policy as revealed in the recent speeches by Mr. Dulles and President Eisenhower, as well as by actions recently taken by congress. It is quite refreshing and reassuring to see the United States coming into a realistic policy at last. If the United States had followed in the post-war years a policy similar to their present one, the Korea fiasco would never have happened and a great many of the troubles now being faced in Indo-China and in other parts of southeastern Asia would not be vexing the people there.
Under the leadership of men of undoubted loyalty and vision and spiritual greatness, the United States appears to be developing today

a policy which takes full account of a world situation made black and nearly hopeless by the monstrous blunders and perfidies of the not too distant past.


An hon. Member:: In the United States?


Solon Earl Low: Yes, in the United States. They give evidence of possessing a full realization of the strength, character, resources and designs of a ruthless enemy that hopes to complete the conquest of the earth largely by the strategy of the cold war which has been described as a battle for men's minds, backed up of course by the threat of employment of massive military might if needed. It is reassuring to see a growing and widespread awareness amongst the American people of the great danger that their own nation was in from subversion during the post-war years. That awareness is reflected in their almost complete rejection of the recent skilful attempt of the communists to brain-wash the American people through the strategy of the shameless liar, Harvey Matusow. It is reflected also in American awakening to the fact that communist subversion is perhaps the greatest danger to all of the free countries of southeastern Asia.
We believe that we see the United States developing a new foreign policy that takes into account the rights and the wrongs of the various problems of international relations, and we go along with that. We believe that the cold war has caused too many people to become so preoccupied with the problem of preventing a shooting war that they have lost sight of the rights and the wrongs of the other pressing problems facing the world, just as those at Yalta allowed the rights and the wrongs of Russia's demands to be completely obscured by their intense prejudices and emotions or their foolish fears that if they did not appease her, Russia would leave them to fight Japan alone.
I believe that the United States state department released the Yalta papers last week as a means of demonstrating to the American people and the world at large that the United States has indeed made a major change in policy, and that alone is justification enough for their release; but there are many more good reasons. By their action in releasing those papers they told us that Yalta is an excellent example of how not to deal with the Russians and how not to negotiate peace settlements, and I hope we are paying attention. The people of the United States today give evidence of being determined to profit by the monstrous mistakes of their predecessors in office. It is unfortunate, of course, that the United States' version of
External Affairs
the Yalta papers seems to cast a reflection on Mr. Churchill. I think everybody regrets that. It would have been better if this could have been avoided while the great man is living; I think everybody realizes that he has made an outstanding personal contribution to this generation, and because of that we all dislike seeing him hurt in any way. But I feel sure that world-wide knowledge of his priceless services to this world will quickly disperse any cloud that may have been cast over him.
While I am speaking of the Yalta papers, I am reminded of something that happened in this house two years ago. We Social Crediters for some years had been watching very closely what was happening in the international field, and we saw surrender after surrender to communism and an alarming growth in the strength of communism. We cried out against these things, very often at the risk of severe criticism.
Two years ago quite a number of things were being revealed as having taken place at Yalta, Tehran, Casablanca and Potsdam. At that time I made a statement to the effect that when the facts of this era were made known and the full history of this time was written many people-when I said that I had in mind the millions in East Germany, the millions in Poland, Korea and other countries that I could name-would say that the last two presidents of the United States were the great betrayers of humanity. I was made the target for a great deal of attack and abuse because I had used those words. I recall that in the election campaign of 1953 the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) went around my own province severely attacking me and the Social Credit candidates generally on the basis of that statement which I had made here in parliament.
We were to be eliminated, he said, this splinter party here, because we had tried to lift the veil of secrecy which had been kept over these international conferences. We had evidently committed a sin in trying to inform the Canadian people. However, time has a habit of vindicating or condemning. I should like to point out that statesmen should possess themselves of the knowledge which is so essential to the exercise of vision, especially in times like these.
I draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the facts as they were revealed in the Yalta papers released just last week. And I further draw his attention to a statement made by one of his very ardent newspaper supporters in western Canada, the Edmonton Journal. In its editorial column of March 18

External Affairs
last the Edmonton Journal, speaking of the Yalta papers, made this very strong statement:
British fears that these disclosures would lead to embarrassment all round are likely to be only too justified. Even the first summaries appearing in the news are full of dynamite. All the participants, but especially the late President Roosevelt, appear in an extremely bad light. That the president's judgment was failing in the later years of his life has long been known, but few realized the depth of his credulity towards Soviet Russia and his animosity towards Britain, or at least towards the commonwealth idea, as revealed in these papers. The most striking example, of course, was his secret proposal to Stalin for excluding British influence in the Far East and even for the surrender of Hong Kong.
The editorial continues:
It is dismaying, too, to find the responsible leaders of the free world seriously talking about such fantastic propositions as the division of Germany into three-or perhaps five-parts.
Perhaps under the pressure of his heavy and exacting duties the Prime Minister did not have the time two years ago to keep up with his homework and research work. Perhaps because of that we should excuse him, but I merely point out that sometimes when we are trying to get the facts and inform the Canadian people we suffer in consequence abuse and attack.
The Edmonton Journal editorial winds up by saying that today's statesmen and diplomats, by studying the record of why and how their predecessors went wrong, will have an opportunity of avoiding their mistakes. Relating that to the Far Eastern situation I should like to point out that the communists in China appear confident and alert to take advantage of any hesitation whatsoever on the part of America and the western nations. When Mr. Dulles was here last week he called it recklessness, but whether it is alert confidence or recklessness born of a belief that they whipped the United Nations' forces in the Korean war and France in Indo-China, it is clear that in the present situation any hesitation on the part of the United States and the western nations will be interpreted as a sign of weakness and will likely encourage the reds to try to take the offshore islands, and perhaps Formosa, by force.
The United States quite rightly feels that she must not sacrifice what loyal allies she has in the Far East. The 600,000 freedom-loving soldiers on Formosa and the R.O.K. army in South Korea, with valuable naval and air bases in their possession, it seems to me, are of tremendous importance to the morale and security of all the free peoples of southeastern Asia as well as Australia, New Zealand and the North American continent.

I think there is solid strategic sense in Secretary of State Dulles' recent statements of American policy in the Pacific. I think that this is in strong contrast to what some of the starry-eyed dreamers of the British Labour party have been saying. Only a few weeks ago one of Mr. Attlee's cabinet ministers made the silly recommendation that Formosa be handed over to the communists and that Chiang Kai-shek be exiled to St. Helena, there to be kept under guard by the United States seventh fleet. This kind of poison has been fed to the British people now for so long that the government today is not able to take a stand except one which is interpreted by the communists as weakness.
It appears that Mr. Churchill has been influenced to a quite extensive degree by the attitude of the British Labour party. It appears likely also that Mr. Churchill has been influenced very strongly by Britain's need for trade with red China. If that is so, we in Canada and the United States have nobody to blame but ourselves for the situation. By our reprehensible attitude toward trade and the dollar problem in the early post-war years we literally forced Britain into a position of dependence upon trade with Russia and China for many things essential to her very existence. Britain's present foreign policy reflects her anxiety about keeping some favourable trading relations with those countries. I think one of the strongest pieces of evidence in support of this belief is to be found in the speed and vehemence with which Britain denounced the recent proposal that she give up Hong Kong.
We were heartened by a number of things which Mr. Dulles said in his broadcast to the American people on March 8 last. I read the script in U.S. News and World Report. Mr. Dulles had just got back from Bangkok and he told the American people about how the United States, working within the framework of the United Nations charter, had joined in mutual security treaties which cover the freedom-loving countries of Korea, Japan, Formosa, the Philippines, South Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaya, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand. He said that one of these treaties, the eight-nation Manila pact for southeast Asia, has just come into force and that he went to Bangkok to attend the first meeting of the treaty council.
Mr. Dulles stated that the three main purposes of the Manila pact were, first, defence against open-armed aggression; second, defence against subversion; and, third, the improvement of economic and social conditions in all these countries. As I read Mr. Dulles' speech it seemed to me that the whole attitude of the American government toward

southeastern Asia was to bind these free peoples together in a brotherhood of mutually satisfactory and helpful co-operation in order to minimize the danger from aggression and also to destroy the subversive elements that keep gnawing away in an attempt to break down constituted government and to give the communists a chance to step in.
It was also clear and very heartening, too, when I read that speech to note that the United States held out to southeastern Asiatic countries the hope of substantial help from the United States in their efforts to improve their economic and social conditions. It appears that as a consequence of United States leadership in the formation of the Manila pact and by her actions since it was formed, United States' prestige has risen in southeastern Asia to considerable heights.
Reference has been made to the Colombo plan this afternoon and this evening, particularly by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). In the debate on the speech from the throne I devoted a large part of my address to what I thought about extending Canada's contribution to the Colombo plan. I did not mention a billion dollars or any such figure at the time. I merely mentioned that the $26 million which we contribute today is not enough. I go along with the minister and with those who say that in extending economic aid to these countries under the Colombo plan we should extend to them the kind of help that will help them to help themselves. That is the only kind of help they can use. We should be prepared to give them whatever is required to assist them in bringing their social and economic conditions to a decent standard.
What satisfaction we have shown over the recent changes in United States policy is not based upon a desire to see a test of strength between the United States and Russia. God forbid that any such thing should ever happen. Canada would surely be involved in such a test. Our satisfaction arises because we see developing a firmer, more realistic policy that gives some hope of keeping the world out of war and of bringing us into an era of peace.
History has shown that human liberties have been won only after long struggle. They have been preserved in all ages only by being prepared to fight for them. We know we face a very, very difficult situation now, because while the only way we can preserve our freedoms is to be prepared to fight for them if necessary, we realize at the same time that if we did fight for them, it might have the effect of loosing upon the world all the tragic consequences of nuclear warfare.
External Affairs
But we have to be prepared to take that chance just as our fathers have taken it times without number in the past.
This, of course, poses a real dilemma. If the awful nature of the problem forces us to our knees with the overpowering conviction that there is no other source of help to which we -can turn but that of a just and loving God, then we will be well on the way to a solution that will save mankind.
Speaking of this dilemma on March 6, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) had this to say:
It can be seen that whatever happens we will need, in the trying circumstances that we face, strong nerves, and deep faith; great wisdom and patience and understanding. And we will have to shape our education and our teaching more than ever to these ends.
With these words we heartily agree.


Mr. J. L. MacDougall (Vancouver-Burrard):: I am happy to rise on this occasion to participate in a most important series of addresses by hon. members of this house.
At the outset I am going to state bluntly that as far as the intricacies of foreign affairs are concerned, I am going to leave them to the experts.
From my experience on the external affairs committees of this house since 1949 and from my experience as a freshman at the United Nations, I feel that I possibly did pick up something there which might be of at least some interest to the people of Canada and the hon. members of this house, whether or not it solves any of the problems that beset the world today in this era of cold war.
First of all, sir, I wish to pay a most superlative compliment to the hon. minister of external affairs (Mr. Pearson). I have observed him at the United Nations and I am sure some of the girls and women of Canada will be envious when I say that while he was there many of the representatives from large and small foreign countries were so anxious to buss him when they met him that invariably he had to sit down. He has a great many admirers in all foreign countries and we in Canada, I think, can be justly proud not only of the minister but also of the staff-


Mr. Knowles:: Our blushing diplomat!


John Lorne MacDougall: -of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations.
In my youth I used to be a fair judge of feminine pulchritude and I want to tell this house-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't tell everything!


John Lorne MacDougall: -and the people of Canada that of all the lovely girls I saw in New York the queen rose in a garden of rosebud

External Affairs
girls was a Canadian girl on the Canadian delegation. In the field of beauty we have nothing to be ashamed of; rather we have much about which we can be intensely proud.
I would also like to say a word about the permanent staff. It is very easy for a delegate to go to the United Nations with a roving commission and to enjoy life, but the boys who were down there for months on end and who attended sessions at nine o'clock in the morning and frequently worked far into the night deserve, I believe, the compliments and appreciation of the Canadian parliament and the Canadian taxpayers.
When I was a boy on the prairies we did not have sufficient money to support one particular church and we had itinerant preachers of all denominations. I do not mind telling you that 90 per cent of them were terrible, but just the same-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John Lorne MacDougall: I heard my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) say, "hear, hear". I hope he is not referring to himself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Speaking from experience.


John Lorne MacDougall: I recall my father telling me when I was a boy that when I went to a service I did not have to bother listening to a minister if he did not preach from a text. I feel that was rather good advice, and if I am going to take a text tonight it will be called "Potholes on the Road to Peace". I think that is very applicable.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially in Ottawa.


John Lorne MacDougall: "Potholes on the Road to Peace". Now, I wonder how I arrived at such a title?
Well, at the United Nations, as you know, there are great numbers of different types and races of people. When I speak of potholes on the road to peace I refer to the Middle East. You know without my telling you, although I wish to draw your particular attention to it tonight, the Arab world of the Middle East comprises approximately 1,500,000 square miles. What struck me as being particularly unenviable about various countries in that particular area was this, and I hope my hon. friends to the left will bear with me when I remind them of this fact. The great inhibiting factor in all that huge area, which is approximately cheek-by-jowl with any potential aggression from the Soviet, is what? First of all, it is instability of government. I would ask hon. members to listen to these facts. Jordan had 8 governments in 10 years, 50 governments in 30 years. Egypt had 15 governments in 10 years. Syria had 24 governments

in 10 years. Lebanon had 17 governments from 1943 to 1954, 7 of those in the one year of 1952. Iraq had 50 governments in less than 30 years. By and large, in all those Middle East countries what do we find? We find there is practically no secondary industry. What industry there is in existence is that of agriculture. Here I should like to mention a word about the poor agricultural worker. I should particularly like to address these remarks to my good friends second to my left.


An hon. Member:: The C.C.F.


John Lorne MacDougall: They are always talking about the poor downtrodden farmer; he has nothing, he gets nothing but abuse-that is, those who do not spend the winter in Florida or in California. In the great majority of those countries the actual wage of the agricultural worker, who at the very best never works more than six to seven months out of the twelve, is the stupendous rate of 24 cents to 34 cents a day. From 85 per cent to 90 per cent of the people of the Middle East are suffering from three of the slow killers that beset humankind, namely Bilharzia, hookworm and trachoma. None of these diseases take the victim off suddenly like coronary thrombosis. Oh, no; they just sap the life out of him until he is ready to throw in the white towel. Lack of any initiative is the main feature of those poor victims of the diseases I have just mentioned. They are not diseases that are particularly applicable to those countries: they are tropical in nature and many of the tropical countries have them. But because of lack of sanitation, education and any kind of a standard of living worthy of the name, in those countries today we have victims who care little for the dawning of another day.
Furthermore, in those countries one finds something else that we in this house should bear in mind. Where the governments are formed, there is no sense of unity and there is no sense of loyalty. The gendarmes of the various governments are there not to protect that country or the people of that country but to protect the government.


An hon. Member:: Do we have to listen to this?


John Lorne MacDougall: You certainly do not have to listen; this is a free country. In addition, this instability of government breeds disloyalty. You have no national sentiment of loyalty in any of those Middle East countries, particularly those of the Arab world. As a result, you have complete chaos as far as unity of purpose is concerned, either of the people or of the governments thereof. Those that are out of power are constantly "on the make" to get into power; and when they

get into power, there is no loyalty then because it is only a matter of days or months until their very best friends will cut their jugular veins, and that is the end of the dictator of that particular country.
At this point I might also say this lest any of us has the idea that it would be worth while to spend a large amount of money to rearm the Arab world. I want to tell you that, from a study of the works of men who know, rearmament of the Arab world is an utter and complete myth. However, there is a type of interloyalty amongst the Arab countries, but unfortunately it is not one that we can admire. It is a loyalty born of hatred; and that hatred is a hatred towards Israel. I think we should realize what our position is there. We know how the recent hatred has been brought about because in the Arab-Israelian war we sided with the new state of Israel against the Arabs. In order that we might have a better picture and a deeper knowledge of what is the causative factor in that hatred, I will proceed with that explanation in a few minutes.
I was particularly struck by the dislike of many of these Arab states for the free countries of the world. Let us not think, Mr. Speaker, that that dislike is something that can be glossed over. There is an old adage to the effect that the Lord loves a cheerful giver. With respect to that matter, I think it is necessary that we, directly or indirectly, must realize that we are never [DOT] going to save any country by charity. The best way to accomplish that objective is for those various countries to get a certain amount of technical knowledge from us and, by means of that knowledge, to help themselves and to pull themselves up by the bootstraps. Of these various Arab countries I was particularly struck by the appearance of the representatives of a country that, through my ignorance, I had never heard of before, the Hashimite kingdom of Yemen. I therefore became intrigued with these people. There are only some 3,500,000 people in the state of Yemen but they have a great similarity in countenance and features to the people of Israel. So I asked myself why, with this apparent background of similarity, there should be this intense dislike of the Yemenite state for Israel. I asked some of my learned friends there if they could tell me something about the Yemenites. I did not get very many answers of an informative nature, and when I returned to Vancouver I called four or five of the outstanding clerics of that city to find out what they knew about the history of the Hashimites. I received some information. Amongst those 50433-151J
External Affairs
whom I called were the outstanding Protestant ministers and also His Excellency the archbishop of the diocese of Vancouver.
From these calls I gathered some slight information, but there is a more ancient, historical and biblical background to this picture than you see at the United Nations. Naturally any of us would expect that in this great cradle of humanity, the ancient world, men and women in those days had their destiny and believed in their destiny. I now refer to the great biblical characters, Abram and Sarah. They in their day were reaching an advanced age without issue. Abram and Sarah were without issue when they were more than 80 years old, although of course in those times they reckoned days and years a little differently than we do now. Sarah said unto Abram: "This is a bad state of affairs. I suggest to you that you take my handmaiden, Hagar, and from such union beget an issue." Well, I guess Sarah did not have to break Abram's arm because the upshot was that they did have an issue and the son was known as Ishmael.
Peculiarly enough, the green-eyed monster did not immediately creep into the house of Abram and Sarah, but shortly after the birth of Ishmael the Lord made a pact with Sarah and Abram and they begat a son, Isaac, who was the spiritual son. That brought trouble that eventually resulted in Hagar with her infant son, Ishmael, being tossed out into the desert. As the child was about to die of thirst and starvation the Lord created a well beside them and the child lived. Ishmael was designated by the Almighty to be a wild man, and I need not tell you he was a wild man in no uncertain terms. It was also designated that from his loins should descend twelve princes, and that also was fulfilled.
That same Ishmael then became the original father of the Arab world. One reason for the continuing hatred was the illegitimacy, as we would term it today. That of itself, I presume, was sufficient to cause the everlasting and continuing dislike and distrust of the Arabs for the people of Israel.
I should like to say a few words about those unfortunate countries before I leave them. Early in its history Saudi Arabia had practically no wealth at all, but today Saudi Arabia and some of the other Arab states have an abundance of oil which in the next 40 years will bring into the coffers of their governments-you note I say "governments" rather than people-some $80 billion. A few years ago the income was up over $200 million annually. Saudi Arabia is one of the more fortunate countries in this unfortunate mess of the Middle Eastern nations. What has she done with her money? Certainly she

External Affairs
has not had the warm heart and the open hand. In niggardly fashion she has made a loan of only $6 million to Syria.
Saudi Arabia has more stability of government than possibly any of the other Arab countries. One reason why they have more stability is that the people are governed by a monarchical system. Before I leave the various Arab countries I should like to refer to some words of the head of the Islamic community in the United Kingdom. He is speaking of Yemen, the country I have just mentioned, and, as the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) would say, I quote:
It is a sorry state. People live in a hell no man can for long endure. Yemen is the miserable limb of all the poverty stricken Arab nations, living behind iron walls, in iron chains.
In most of the Arab countries the guillotine has harvested the heads of the intellectuals and the rest of the people are in utter darkness or behind prison walls.
I wonder if my good friend from Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) will realize that that is a condition that is not necessarily taken from the bolshevik government in the Kremlin, but is a condition that is applicable today in most of those countries that have the thumb of the Kremlin on their throats, or who have satellite administrations who are responsible to the murderers of the Kremlin.
I think it would be quite unfair if I were to speak in a critical manner of those countries without endeavouring in some way to bring about their betterment. Therefore before leaving the subject I suggest that a regional resources and development bank might be established in those Arab countries. I also suggest that the initial amounts for the fund could be gathered through the medium of nations in the United Nations that would contribute. Something resembling a beginning, it seems to me, would be a sum of about $500 million, to assist in a redistribution from the "have" Arab countries to the "have not" Arab countries. By that method, and possibly, sir, by that method alone, will we of the western world be able to help that million and a half square miles. Because if there is a place anywhere on the earth's surface that is a spawning ground for communism, it is that area. The more they can do to help themselves, the greater will be their appreciation of the methods and procedures of parliamentary processes, freedom of religion and freedom of speech-those things we appreciate and they do not have.
Before leaving this sorry mess in the Middle East I would quote the words of the poet Prior who said:
Who breathes must suffer, and who thinks must mourn;
And he alone is bless'd who ne'er was born.

In this whole geographic area of which I have spoken, I am happy to say, there is at least one bright spot; and that one bright spot is Israel. At the United Nations I have heard this question asked: Is Israel a threat to the Arab world? The answer, Mr. Speaker, is unquestionably in the affirmative. Yes, she is-but it is not a fear from conquest but rather a fear from example.
Israel today is a democratic country that has within its confines more than 840,000 Arab refugees. She is educating them. She is giving every opportunity imaginable to all the various categories of people, rich and poor, who are within the confines of her geographic area. Let us not forget that should those potholes on the road to peace become increasingly jarring-and certainly with bad weather and the cold war they might do that-then we have at least one hope in that vast area, the hope of a democratic country that is loyal to the principles of democracy.
Tonight on this occasion I am glad to pay my tribute to the people of Israel who, under difficult circumstances, in my opinion are doing a terrific job in the rehabilitation and further development of that country.
I have already mentioned the multiplicity of parties, the lack of loyalty, the disunity and hatred that exist there. I wonder if we cannot learn a lesson from them. Although we have not a two-party system in this country, a system in which I thoroughly believe for the proper working of democracy, we still have national unity and national loyalty, despite the fact that we have twice two political parties sitting in the House of Commons.
I wonder, if we go along negligent of our duty as liberal democrats-and I use the small "1"-how long we can expect in a spirit of complacency to anticipate that this unity, harmony, benevolence and good will is going to continue. Will it go on ad infinitum or will it terminate within the near future? I ask hon. members to give that thought. How long, oh Lord; how long?
Now I come to the latter part of my remarks-and in doing so I am sorry my good friend from Macleod (Mr. Hansell) is not in his seat, because I appreciated his intricate skating and shadow boxing of a few weeks ago when he so effectively, without an answer from my Tory friends, sabotaged their political effort. I was very much surprised by that.	'
It may be that in the Tory party there are political diagnosticians who are much smarter than I am; but I am right here to tell

you that if I had been a Tory that day I would have been forced to rise to my feet and challenge, if not deny some of the accusations the hon. member for Macleod made on that occasion.


Mr. Hodgson:: He was singing hymns that day.


John Lorne MacDougall: And if my hon. friend who sits behind me wants to join in the singing of hymns, that is all right with me. I can sing them as lustily as anybody in the house. The situation however was one that startled me. And I might say before I go further on that particular aspect of this nonpolitical discourse that despite the work done by the then acting leader of the Tory party, the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Rowe), the absence of the permanent leader of that party from the house was in my opinion as conspicuous as the crash of a giant cedar against an opening in the horizon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Lorne MacDougall: My good friends laugh at that. If their leader was to leave them through illness I would feel sorry for them as well. It is not every party that is as fortunate as the Liberal party that has alternates always ready to take over. It is a fine thing for democracy that you can do that, but it is not always easily done. In a more or less serious, and at the same time jocular manner, I would liken my Social Credit friends to a mulish party. You may interpret that as being stubborn. I do not wish you to put that interpretation on it at all. It would be unfair. But their party is composed of Liberals, and I might say former diehard Tories, who have joined the bandwagon of Social Credit. Because they have no lineage, if I might put it that way, certainly no long lineage of socred doctrine behind them, it is in order, in my opinion, to say that they are mulish because they are riding a hybrid organization. They are like a mule because they have no pride of inheritance and no hope for posterity.
As I listened to the attack of the hon. member for Macleod

and I am sorry he is not here, because I told him that I was going to speak in the external affairs debate-my mind goes right back to the Old Testament. I shall now quote from the second book of Samuel, chapter 20, verses 9 and 10. If hon. members do not think I am telling the truth I advise them to look it up for themselves when they go home.
And Joab said to Amasa, Art thou in health, my brother?
That is the way the hon. member for Macleod kicked off that day. He praised two or
External Affairs
three of the Tory members, particularly the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green). He also spoke in glowing terms of the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) until the hon. member for Kamloops interjected a remark which he did not like. Then he said: Look, my friend, be careful or I will not say nice things about you. Was that not exactly like Joab and Amasa? I continue:
Art thou in health, my brother? And Joab took Amasa by the beard-
I love this.
And Joab took Amasa by the beard with the right hand to kiss him.
Ah, here is the tragedy, stark and naked.
But Amasa took no heed to the sword that was in Joab's hand: so he smote him therewith in the fifth rib,-
I remember that I used to do that when I was a youngster.
and shed out his bowels to the ground, and struck him not again; and he died.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. This might be a convenient time to advise the hon. member that his time has also expired.


John Lorne MacDougall: I have a very few words left, and if I can have the unanimous consent of the house I should like to finish them. Have I unanimous consent?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If so, it is my duty to remind the hon. member that we are engaged in a debate on external affairs, and I would appreciate it very much, as I am sure hon. members would, if he would confine his remarks to that subject.


John Lorne MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am
delighted that you brought up that objection, because there is no question of doubt that what I am speaking on now can have a marked effect upon external affairs.
In conclusion, sir, the possible effect on external affairs is this. We talk rather jocularly about the words that appeared in print all across Canada a couple of weeks ago to the effect that a Russian scientist had developed a two-headed dog. We never for a moment thought that right here in Canada we have a two-headed party. We have a party that could some day bring about a change in external affairs, one part of which preaches Toryism and practises it, while the other head of that party preaches Douglas Social Credit and the just price. How the bones of Mr. Aberhart must turn over in his grave when he realizes, if they do that in that happy region beyond the Jordan, that

External Affairs
in the days when he was at his height he talked about bankers' toadies as being the most damnable thing on earth, and yet a few weeks ago in British Columbia where we have a Social Credit government, the Canadian Bank of Commerce took on to their board of directors a former minister of the Social Credit administration.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Lorne MacDougall: I shall conclude my remarks before I am smitten on the fifth rib and die. Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask everyone in this house and everyone in this country to re-educate themselves individually and collectively in the form of freedom that we all enjoy, and to live within our minds and our hearts the words written by the poet, Arthur Hugh Clough:
And not by eastern windows only,
When daylight comes, comes in the light;
In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
But westward, look, the land is bright!
God save the Queen.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat at a loss as to just what to say in following my good friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard (Mr. MacDougall). He has gone all the way from the Old Testament
right down to the present Liberal party in Canada. Believe me, that is a long drop. My purpose in taking part in this debate is to get back to the subject of external affairs, but in view of the hour I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris moved: the adjournment of the house.
He said: Tomorrow we shall take up interim supply, supplementary estimates and other items that may be available in supply. It is possible that the bill with respect to veterans allowances may be reported. If it is it might be desirable that it be put through its final stages in the house, if the report appears to justify that, so that we may have royal assent before the end of this month if the other place agrees with us.


Howard Charles Green: What does the minister mean by other items in supply?


Walter Edward Harris: We will take citizenship and immigration, which I believe has been reported by the committee.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 9.55 p.m.

Friday. March 25. 1955