1955-04-06

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 308, for the relief of Isidore Tremblay.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 309, for the relief of Doris Lydia Kimber Keller.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 310, for the relief of Letitia MacDonald Lanz.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 311, for the relief of Kurth Sauer. -Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 312, for the relief of Marie Blanche Dionne Krysko.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 313, for the relief of Edna Florence Helen Dawson Smith.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 314, for the relief of Eldora Mary Mills Pope.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 315, for the relief of Roberta Margaret Gilpin Chadsey.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 316, for the relief of Anne Wahl Ryshpan.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 317, for the relief of Marian Toba Wolfe Cohen.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 318, for the relief of Bernice Elizabeth Lunan Day.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 319, for the relief of Ross Harold Becker.-Mr. Huntei.
Bill No. 320, for the relief of Marie Anna Migneault Cloutier.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 321, for the relief of Maria Camko Kowalew.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 322, for the relief of Martin Yvon Blais.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 323, for the relief of Margaret Moffatt Wilkie Johnson.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 324, for the relief of Winnifred Herbert Chapman.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 325, for the relief of Rocco Aldo Amaedeo Mastrocola.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 326, for the relief of Marie Mae Seguin Le Moyne.-Mr. Hunter.
Bill No. 327, for the relief of Amy Joyce Markham King.-Mr. Hunter.


ATOMIC ENERGY


Mr. Bell:: 1.	Has the federal government requested in any manner an expression of intention from the provinces regarding participation by them in the development of atomic energy for power?
2.	If so, when and in what manner?
3.	Have any provinces replied to same or made other representation to the federal government in connection with this said development of atomic energy for power?
4.	If so, which provinces, and when?
5.	What is the present basis for such negotiations?
6.	Are both privately-owned power companies and the provincial power commissions being considered?
7.	Have offers to participate been received by the federal government from private companies?
8.	If so, by whom and when?
9.	What decisions have been taken to date?


Mr. Dickey:: 1.	Yes.
2.	See statement by the Right Hon. C. D.
Howe, March 24, 1955 (Hansard, pages 23292330).
3.	See answer to No. 2.
4.	Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario; British Columbia Power Commission; Saskatchewan Power Corporation; Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board; New Brunswick Electric Power Commission; Nova Scotia Power Commission.
5.	See answer to No. 2.
6.	Yes.
7.	Yes.
8.	British Columbia Electric Company Limited; Calgary Power Commission; Shawi-nigan Power and Water Company Limited; Gatineau Power Company Limited; Power Corporation of Canada Limited; Aluminum Power Company Limited; Nova Scotia Light and Power Company; Seaboard Power Corporation Limited; Newfoundland Light and Power Company; Brazilian Traction and Power Company Limited; West Kootenay Power and Light Company; Maritime Electric Company Limited.
All since June, 1954.
9.	See answer to No. 2.



TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT


Mr. Dinsdale:: 1.	Has the Department of Transport placed an order for a Vickers Viscount aircraft?
2.	If so, what is the cost of such an aircraft, and what functions will it perform?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Questions
introduced into service by Trans-Canada Air Lines. The department is responsible for the regulation of civil aviation and for air traffic control of both military and civil flying. The increasing use by the military and the introduction for civil purposes of turbine-engined aircraft gives rise to new problems which the department can meet only by obtaining direct experience in the flying of such aircraft.
The aircraft will be used by the department to obtain experience in this field and also to serve for calibration of aids to navigation; field inspection and development of airways and airports; tests with air traffic control; training of departmental personnel to deal with problems arising from new speeds, higher altitudes, flight control, operation and maintenance of aircraft of this type; and for general transportation purposes.



AIRDROMES

Mr. MacLean:: What airdromes in Canada, used by scheduled air lines lor scheduled stops, are operated by (a) the Department of Transport; (b) the Department of National Defence; (c) municipalities or other bodies?


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Airports in Canada used by scheduled air lines as scheduled stops*;
Department of Transport-Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Penticton, B.C.; Fort Resolution, N.W.T.; Quebec, P.Q.; Lakehead, Ont.; Saskatoon, Sask.; Hay River, N.W.T.; Swift Current, Sask.; Lethbridge, Alta.; Toronto (Malton), Ont.; Montreal, Que.; Winnipeg, Man.; Norman Wells, N.W.T.; Yellowknife, N.W.T.; North Bay, Ont.; Fort St. John, B.C.; Providence, N.W.T.; Fort Smith, N.W.T.; Regina, Sask.; Grande Prairie, Alta.; Seven Islands, P.Q.; Kimberley, B.C.; The Pas, Man.; Moncton, N.B.; Windsor, Ont.; Muskoka, Ont.; Yarmouth, N.S.; Yorkton, Sask.; Fort McMurray, Alta.; Port Hardy, B.C.; Fort Simpson, N.W.T.; Quesnel, B.C.; Gander, Nfld.; Sand-spit, B.C.; Kapuskasing, Ont.; Sydney, N.S.; London, Ont.; Victoria, B.C.; Mont Joli, Que.; Wrigley, N.W.T.; North Battleford, Sask.
Department of National Defence-Comox, B.C.; Val d'Or, P.Q.; Halifax, N.S.; Yorkton, Sask.; Summerside, P.E.I.; Goose, Nfld.; Whitehorse, Y.T.; Fort Nelson, B.C.; Watson Lake, Y.T.; St. John's, Nfld.
Municipalities-Baie Comeau, P.Q.; Moose Jaw, Sask.; Cranbrook, B.C.; Prince Albert, Sask.; Edmonton, Alta.; Saint John, N.B.; Fort Vermilion, Alta.; Trail, B.C.; Lloyd-minster, Sask.; Williams Lake, B.C.; Medicine Hat, Alta.; Castlegar, B.C.; Peace River, Alta.; Dawson Creek, B.C.; Rouyn (Noranda), Que.;

Forestville, Que.; Timmins, Ont.; Kamloops, B.C.; Westview, B.C.; Calgary, Alta.; New Glasgow, N.S.; Dauphin, Man.; Rimouski, Que.; Flin Flon, Man.; Sudbury, Ont.; Fredericton, N.B.; Vancouver, B.C.; Matane, P.Q.
Other bodies-Brandon, Man.; City of Brandon flying club; Dawson City, Y.T., Government of Yukon Territory; Mayo, Y.T., Government of Yukon Territory; Red Lake, Ont., used by Central Northern Airways (under negotiation); Stephenville, Nfld., United States air force; Uranium City, Sask., Eldorado Mining and Refining.
Note: *See corrected answer, pages 2896-97.



NEVADA BOMB TESTS

Mr. Goode:: What are the true facts in regard to radioactive fall-out in connection with the Nevada bomb tests?


Mr. Martin:: The facts in regard to radioactive fall-out as a result of the Nevada bomb tests were given in a report released by the United States atomic energy commission on February 15, 1955. These effects are described in paragraph 31 of the report which reads as follows:
"31. Only relatively small nuclear test explosions are conducted at the Nevada test site, in contrast to the tests of high yield thermonuclear devices at the Pacific proving grounds. In Nevada, as well as in the Pacific, all tests are planned for times when forecast weather conditions minimize the possibility of fall-out hazard. Methods of forecasting weather patterns in these areas are improving steadily. High air bursts at the Nevada testing grounds have produced no significant fallout and heavy fall-out from near surface explosions has extended only a few miles from the point of burst. The hazard has been successfully confined to the controlled area of the test site. The highest actual dose of radiation at an off-site community has been estimated to be less than one-third of the greatest amount of radiation which atomic energy workers are permitted to receive each year under the atomic energy commission's conservative safety standards."



DENTAL CARE FOR CHILDREN, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND

Mr. Kickham:: What assistance has been provided under the national health program towards the improvement of dental care for children in Prince Edward Island?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Federal funds amounting to $92,426 have been provided since the inauguration of the national health program for the establishment of a division of dental health within the

provincial department of health and welfare to carry on the following activities:
(1)	Two complete mobile dental units have been equipped and two dentists with dental assistants are being employed to operate these units.
(2)	Dental clinics have been set up in the health centre in Summerside, and in Charlottetown.
(3)	Dental hygienists are being employed to carry on an educational program in dental health in the rural schools of the province.



HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT

Mr. Applewhaite:: What are the amounts available under the hospital construction grant for various types of hospital accommodation?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The federal hospital construction grant provides assistance as follows:
1.	$1,500 per bed for mental, tuberculosis, chronic and convalescent beds;
2.	$1,000 per bed for active treatment beds;
3.	$500 per bed for nurses' beds;
4.	$1,000 for each 300 square feet of floor space devoted to those services that provide diagnostic and treatment services to outpatients as well as inpatients; and to combined laboratories;
5.	$1,000 for each 300 square feet of acceptable floor area devoted to training facilities for health and hospital personnel.



COMMUNITY PLANNING ASSOCIATION

Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	Does the community planning association receive any financial grant or technical assistance of any kind from the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or any other agency or department of government?
2.	If so, how much has been contributed in each of the years 1951 to 1954 inclusive?
3.	Who are the officers of the said association?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	The community planning association of Canada receives annual financial grants through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation under the terms of part V, section 32 (e) of the National Housing Act, 1954. The corporation does not provide any technical assistance. The association does not receive any financial aid or technical assistance from any other agency or department of the federal government.
2.	Annual grants made to the association have been of two kinds: (a) Direct grant; (b) matching grant, a limited sum available on condition that the association itself raises half this amount from membership subscriptions, contributions from provinces and other sources.
Questions
In the years 1951		to 1954 the	grants have
been	as follows:		
1951	Direct 	... $40,000	Matching ...	. . . $15,000	$55,0001952	Direct 	.. . $47,500	Matching ...	.. . $15,000	$62,5001953	Direct 	. .. $47,500	Matching ...	. . . $15,000	$62,5001954	Direct 	.. . $47,500	Matching ...	... $25,000	$72,5003.	The community planning association of Canada is governed by a council of 21 members, composed of two representatives elected annually by each of the ten provincial divisions of the association and one representative of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. At present the president is Sir Brian Dunfield, justice of the supreme court of Newfoundland. The members of the council are as follows: British Columbia, H. V. Jackson; P. R. U. Stratton. Alberta,B.	Y. Card; G. R. Robins. Saskatchewan, Miss Jean Downing; Gordon R. Arnott. Manitoba, C. E. Joslyn; E. W. Thrift. Ontario, P. Alan Deacon; Dr. Albert Rose. Quebec,C.	-E. Campeau; Jacques Simard. New Brunswick, E. A. Willis; Miss M. L. Lynch. Nova Scotia, J. P. Dumaresq; J. I. McVittie. Prince Edward Island, Dr. Henry Moyse; Dr. Frank MacKinnon. Newfoundland, Sir Brian Dun-field; Eric Cook. Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Humphrey Carver.
The director is Mr. Eric Beecroft and the secretary-treasurer is Miss J. M. Laventure.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY  PAYMENTS

Mr. Mclvor:: 1.	Has the federal government resumed payments to Ontario under the Trans-Canada Highway Act?
2.	If so, when were such payments resumed?
3.	How much has been paid to date?
4.	How much has been paid since payments were resumed?
5.	How much has been paid to date to all provincial governments who have signed the agreement?


Mr. Bourgei:: 1.	Yes.
2.	March 11, 1955.
3.	As Canada's share, $17,186,600.20 to March 26, 1955.
4.	$2,823,152.16.
5.	Newfoundland - $5,086,072.19; Prince
Edward Island-$1,097,615.10; Nova Scotia- $75,699.97; New Brunswick-$2,438,880.81; Ontario-$17,186,600.20;	Manitoba-$5,419,-
558,82; Saskatchewan-$6,784,802.28; Alberta -$7,707,547.54; British Columbia-$14,238,020.34. Total to March 26, 1955-$60,034,-797.25.

Inquiries of the Ministry "parliament at work"


Mr. Diefenbaker:: 1.	How many man hours were expended in shooting and preparing the documentary production entitled "Parliament at Work''?
2.	What is the estimated cost of the production, including a proportionate share of the annual salaries of the officials for the time engaged in its production?
3.	When did the minister first become aware of the shooting of the film?
4.	Did the minister order the production to be discontinued as unsuitable for presentation? If so, on what date?


Mr. Pickersgill:: 1 and 2. The preparation of a documentary production on "Parliament at Work" was begun on February 15, 1955. Four hundred and seventy-nine man hours were expended on this project at an estimated cost, which includes everything used in computing government costs, of $3,430.65. Material photographed will not be scrapped but will be kept in the stock library for whatever use can be made of it in future.
3.	The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration first became aware that this film was being prepared about mid-day of March 10, 1955.
4.	The minister did not order the production to be discontinued at any time. He attended a viewing of the sequences in company with the Speaker and a number of other members on March 14,	1955, and
indicated that one or two of the sequences did not seem very suitable for presentation in a film on parliament at work. The film board officials in charge of the project themselves came to the conclusion that the material they had available would not make a satisfactory picture and that the project should be suspended and the material kept available in case it was decided, at a later date, to make a film on parliament at work. The minister concurred in this decision.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Hodgson:: 1.	How many buildings, office space or locations are occupied by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Ottawa?
2.	How many of these are owned by the government?
3.	How many are held on a rental basis?
4.	What is the amount of rent for each?



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question


to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Was the minister trying to emulate the late Right Hon. Mr. Mackenzie King's famous five cent speech-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


George Harris Hees: -in Kitchener the other evening when he said, and I quote-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the type of question which certainly is not going to give him the kind of information for the supplying of which this period has been set aside. The hon. member would have to make his own deduction as to what the minister was trying to say when he made a certain speech. I would ask the hon. member to put his question as directly as possible without comments which are not allowed.


George Harris Hees: -when he said in Kitchener the other evening-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Harris Hees: -that the province of Ontario could only receive a hospitalization plan if it changed the government in the province?


Mr. Speaker:: Again I will have to ask the hon. member to put his question.


An hon. Member:: He does not know.


George Harris Hees: Then I would ask what the minister meant when he said as quoted in the Globe and Mail that Ontario would only receive a hospitalization plan when there was a change of government in that province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think I was perhaps the most astonished person in Canada when I read the remarks attributed to me in the Globe and Mail. I do not think I have ever said before that I was misquoted; I was not misquoted in this case, I was not quoted at all. I actually did say something like the following words-


An hon. Member:: Something like this?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the following words represent pretty accurately what I said, although it is not exactly word for word, as I did not have a text. I cannot vouch for the individual words exactly or say that they were precisely in this order, but the sense is exactly and precisely as follows.


George Harris Hees: Approximately so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I said was this. Health is constitutionally a provincial matter but the policy of the federal Liberal party is to assist in provincially administered hospital insurance when the provinces generally are in

accord, and that could not happen until the Ontario government adopted a new attitude.


An hon. Member:: Come clean now.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. R. Balcom (Halifax):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Will the parliamentary assistant indicate what long-term plans his department has for Camp Aldershot, Nova Scotia, and will he assure the house that the maximum use will be made of this excellent training site and facilities?


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. When Camp Gagetown is completed, regular army units will not be stationed at Camp Aldershot except in the event of an emergency. A small permanent caretaking staff will remain at the camp. It is intended, however, that the camp will continue to be used for the training of units of the militia and the Royal Canadian army cadets.



FERRY SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
"bluenose"
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. A. M. Kirk (Shelburne-Yarmoulh-Clare):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to make a progress report on the Bluenose, indicating an approximate launching date as well as when she is now scheduled to start regular runs between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say at the moment is that it is hoped it will be possible to launch this vessel toward the end of the month of May next in order to carry out trials during the month of June and in the early part of July. It is hoped it will be possible to put it into service by the end of July next.

The house resumed, from Thursday, April 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Harris for committee of supply.



LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr. W. M. Hamilion (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, when the house rose at six o'clock last night we were discussing the
Law Enforcement
question of whether or not I should quote directly from a newspaper story in connection with my remarks. Without in any way admitting the validity of the arguments that were introduced against that quotation, I am quite prepared to save the house time by paraphrasing the story as you suggested. In general this story indicates-


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member for one moment because of his remark that he does not admit the validity of the argument that was advanced. It is not a question of argument that was advanced; it is a ruling that was given and the hon. member must accept it unless he wishes to appeal it.


William McLean Hamilton: In
general the story indicates that big-time United States gangsters are operating in Montreal but they failed in their first attempt to make Montreal the underworld capital of North America. Five syndicates, we are told, are operating in the general area commanded by a man who was formerly aide to a New York gang boss, Frank Costello. Reference is made in the article to another 25 United States gangsters of United States underworld fame. These men are said in the article to have come to Canada during the last three or four years, none through official immigration channels.


John Whitney Pickersgill: 
Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is paraphrasing he is, of course, taking the responsibility for the words he is saying. It is up to the hon. member whether or not he will follow the request that the minister has made of him.


William McLean Hamilton: The
Minister of Justice is in the house, Mr. Speaker, and I take it he has taken note of this and will see that this information is transmitted to the proper authorities. I will also remind the house, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose in bringing this newspaper story into the picture which I am now paraphrasing is to demonstrate to the house the type of

Law Enforcement
information which should have caused the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to instigate an investigation of the situation at the time I raised the point in the house in order to obtain some information for us since most of this information had been bandied about as common knowledge for a good many months previous. Having said that, I will continue with the story.


Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me just one short question?


Mr. Hamilton (Noire Dame de Grace):: Certainly.


Jean Lesage: Is the hon. member taking responsibility for the accuracy of the newspaper reports he is now paraphrasing?


William McLean Hamilton: In
answering that question, Mr. Speaker, I will perhaps have the same view in that regard as did Mr. St. Laurent in this house after he made his famous remark in Seoul on the question of the Chinese government: the information was published in the newspapers. That is the statement I make and I am telling you what information was available in the newspapers to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I take full responsibility for paraphrasing this article and for giving you the information which is contained in the newspapers.


Jean Lesage: On a point of order then, Mr. Speaker, I understood Your Honour to rule a few minutes ago that when the hon. member was paraphrasing the article which he has in his hands he was taking the responsibility for the accuracy of the facts related in the article. If he does not take that responsibility, I do not believe, sir, in view of what you have said, that he should be allowed to continue.


Mr. Speaker:: Let us agree on this point. The hon. member is taking the responsibility for whatever he says. He could be paraphrasing a newspaper story without informing us that he is doing so. He is speaking as a member in this house and whatever he says he is responsible for. Now, it is precisely the objection which was raised by the minister the other day in which I supported him, that he could not be allowed to quote directly from the newspaper because other hon. members would perhaps quote directly from newspapers contradicting what the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace has been quoting. Therefore, instead of having an argument as between hon. members, we would have an argument as between newspapers and would have no facilities, as far as we are concerned, of ascertaining the accuracy of the stories [Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace).)
which appeared therein. If the hon. member is making a statement and refers to some information which he has found somewhere he can espouse the information in his own words and make it his own. I mean, an hon. member may make a charge which is not necessarily well founded. But if he wants to make it upon his general responsibility as a member of this house I think we ought to let him do it.


Jean Lesage: With all due deference to Your Honour, may I point out, sir, that the hon. member is not being argumentative. He is relating facts, and I believe that you just said, sir, that in doing so, he is taking the responsibility for what he is relating. He just refused to take that responsibility.


Mr. Knowles:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we could not get it cleared up as to whether the hon. member is really infringing upon any rule of this house. Citation 265 of Beauchesne's third edition reads:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.
I wonder whether the newspaper articles which the hon. member is attempting to read or to paraphrase come under the ban of that citation. If Your Honour will look in the concluding paragraph of the immediately preceding citation you will find that it reads:
Bourinot, page 335, refers to these objections when he says a member may read extracts from documents, books, or other printed publications as part of his speech, provided in so doing he does not infringe upon any point of order.
In the light of that, I wonder whether Your Honour could indicate what other points of order or ruling there might be that the hon. member is infringing upon. It seems to me that he is not out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: When the point was raised yesterday I was careful not to quote the two citations that the hon. member has referred to because they are not the two citations on which I anchored my decision. I look at the rule which says that a member must not read his speech. He must advance in support of it whatever he has to say, his own arguments, and not those of others, and no one will question that. What he was attempting to do was to support his views by what he said appeared in a newspaper. He went on to say that if a newspaper reporter should find certain things and report them in the detailed fashion that he has, he felt that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration could have done likewise. At that moment the minister rose and said: In another newspaper

someone else has contradicted the story referred to by the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace. It was at that moment that I rose and said: Let us have the hon. member's own words and his own facts. If he wants to refer to information appearing elsewhere he may paraphrase it and take the responsibility for it. Let us not have an argument as between newspapers but as between members.
If the hon. member says: Here is a situation that exists. My own knowledge of this matter is very frail but I have here a newspaper story; that is my bible as far as the situation is concerned. An hon. member on the other side says: I have another newspaper and as far as I am concerned, this is the story. Where do we stand? Then we come to the question of the two citations to which the hon. member has referred. We have long citations from newspaper reports contradicting each other and not very much by way of what the hon. member himself should be saying when he addresses this house, namely, his own arguments, his own views and his own facts, facts within his own knowledge.
The reason I told the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that it was difficult for me to go beyond what I have already said was this. Citation 262 of Beau-chesne's third edition says:
The practice of reading extracts from newspapers to support an argument in debate has been followed in the British house since 1840, when Speaker Peel, with the acquiescence of the house, allowed a member to proceed to read passages from a newspaper. In 1856, when a member was called to order for reading an extract from a newspaper, the Speaker stated that on former occasions when he had attempted to enforce this rule, he had been overruled by the house. A similar statement was made by the chairman in committee on March 9, 1857.
Now, I take this as an indication-and we know from our own experience here-that it has always been rather difficult to have this rule observed whereby an hon. member will not quote from newspapers in support of his own argument or whatever information he wants to supply to the house. If I am to err I would rather in this instance err on the side of generosity. I think that situation is one which the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace understands, and perhaps we might let him proceed a little further to find out if later on he will be exactly in order. If we find that he is going beyond what the rules allow, we can intervene again. At this moment I will let him go on.


William McLean Hamilton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many of us on all sides of the house would be in difficulties if
Law Enforcement
we were not allowed from time to time to quote from and back our opinions with certain material of this sort.


Mr. Dickey:: Speak for yourself.


William McLean Hamilton: By the way, I am speaking for myself.


John Horace Dickey: Very definitely.


William McLean Hamilton: To return to the paraphrase of the newspaper article, it states that the specialty of those people operating in Montreal was the bookmaking business. It has reference to their doing a business of $5 million a week.
Finally-and this will conclude the paraphrase of the article-they are claimed to have been driven from the city proper by the new city administration and have located in the suburbs. The article continues and indicates that the police of the suburbs deny their existence.
Last night, Mr. Speaker, knowing that it might be argued against this information having been available to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and that it had been denied by the police chief of Montreal, I moved somewhat ahead of myself in answer to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and put on the record a couple of quotations from the police chief of Montreal as reported in the press. That should be emphasized, because some attempts may be made at some time in this debate to claim that the information set forth in this newspaper story was subsequently denied by those in authority. There is no doubt that the deputy director of police of Montreal, Pacifique Plante, on the following day, said one or two different things. But the point is, Mr. Speaker, that never at any time, so far as I can find out, did he categorically deny the truth of those allegations. For example, he is quoted in the Montreal Herald of February 23 as saying:
I had information-reliable information-weeks ago that five groups of American gamblers were operating in the suburbs. I haven't heard any more since. Frankly, I can't understand what all the present ballyhoo is about.
Subsequently in the story the following appeared:
A French-language newspaper quoted him as saying the Toronto story was "pure fantasy". Another afternoon paper quoted him as saying the "syndicates" have been driven out of the city and now were operating in the suburbs.
The same paper claimed Plante said the suburban operations were a "threat" to Montreal.
Plante subsequently denied that.
In an interview with the Herald Plante declared:-
This is the deputy director of the police department of Montreal speaking.
"I would consider these men as gamblers or shady characters, not necessarily gangsters. I cannot say whether the operation is still going

Law Enforcement
on in the suburbs. I am not keeping any police there. In Montreal, we are policing the city to the best of our ability and I think we are successful."
Then there is the following:
Plante said that at one point there were perhaps as many as 100 United States gamblers involved in the local operations.


Mr. Bourque:: I rise on a question of privilege as mayor of the city of Outremont, a suburb of Montreal. My friend said that the houses of ill fame and gambling houses had all been sent to the suburbs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Do not be so sensitive.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has no question of privilege there.


William McLean Hamilton: did not mean to imply by any manner of means that they had all moved into Outremont or the other suburbs. I was doing my best, in spite of interruptions, to establish their existence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would permit me to ask him one question. Has he any personal knowledge about this subject whatsoever? Does he know of a single person who has entered this country illegally and, if so, why has he not laid an information?


John Horace Dickey: All he knows is what he reads in the newspapers.


George Harris Hees: You do not even know that. That was a sharp one, wasn't it?


William McLean Hamilton: Let
me say at this point, because I propose to introduce it later, that I know of at least one man with a criminal record in the United States who entered Canada, who subsequently was convicted of an offence in Canada and who has definitely remained in Canada with the blessing and the support of the previous minister of citizenship and immigration.


An hon. Member:: Give the name.


William McLean Hamilton: His
name is Harold C. Banks. Having disposed of that-


George Harris Hees: Any more questions, Jack?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What about my question?


John Horace Dickey: Is he one of the gamblers?


William McLean Hamilton: There is one other bit of information. In

the same story there is anotner statement, although not made by Mr. Plante. The article reads:
Superintendent Edward Brakefield-Moore of the R.C.M.P. said yesterday his men had been investigating the men "for at least two months" in cooperation with Montreal police. He said the information was being turned over to the immigration department. Asked whether prosecution was expected, the R.C.M.P. official replied the matter would be decided in Ottawa. He indicated that present publicity may alter the course of events.
I come now to the part played by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration in this affair. It has already been indicated that undesirable aliens have been operating in the bookmaking business in Canada for something over two years and that for several months indications of such activities have been a matter of record through the press. I may say further that the names of many of these men are known-I am going to put some of them on the record in a few minutes-and are a matter of record in certain police forces in Canada. It is equally clear that the department has the power to inquire into and order the deportation of undesirable aliens who have entered Canada. Yet what has the department done? Nothing.
I want to know, for example, what the minister has done regarding the statement in the Toronto Telegram of February 22 which I paraphrased a little while ago, a statement that refers specifically to these people entering Canada by other means than through official immigration channels. These statements are not idle chatter. They are statements made by responsible newspapermen after considerable effort on their part which I, before coming here, have sincerely attempted to verify, and to the best of my knowledge and belief I have verified that these conditions exist. To give some idea of the type of men we are dealing with, let me tell you something about one of the men who has been operating in Montreal. He is Carmine Galenti, alias Galento, alias John Lelo, the name by which he is most commonly known in Montreal, alias John Surro. He is American born and has been in and around Montreal for most of the last three years and has been known, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, as part owner of a certain restaurant which forms one of the hang-outs for the entire gang of thugs.
He was tried for murder, convicted of manslaughter in the second degree and sentenced to five to ten years. Subsequently he was paroled and later was picked up and served the rest of his sentence. He was convicted of felonious assault on a police officer, sentenced to 12i years and apparently

served it all. There are other charges against him in the United States. There are others, many of them, who have been engaged in this operation. The information is available, and I tell the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Pickersgill) that it is available no farther away from him than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) through the Royal Canadian Mounted Police if he would only ask him for it, on at least 25 of these individuals, a number of whom may be easily identified as Americans with extremely questionable backgrounds and checkered careers both in Canada and the United States.
I have given the house the record of Galenti. Another who is well known is Camille Salim Joseph, alias Jacobs, who was actually convicted recently of keeping a bookmaking establishment. Then there are Michael Joseph Consolo, better known as Big Mike, Gilbert Beckley, Leo Schaeffer, Gino Campo, Jack Keithley and D. Geiger-man. These are names which are on record with the police department, and apparently the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has done nothing about them. If one is sincere, and I am sincere, one does not get these names and satisfy oneself sufficiently to be able to stand up and make such charges in the house without a tremendous amount of personal effort and a genuine attempt to establish the facts to one's satisfaction.
I wart the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to stand up and tell us why he has not looked into this situation because I do not think he can tell us he did not have some of this information over a period of a great many months. I want to know what relationship exists between one of these men and one with a very similar name who was investigated most thoroughly by the Kefauver inquiry in the United States. There is yet another with the same name and initials as a man who was identified during the Kefauver inquiry as the brother-in-law of Frank Costello, perhaps the most notorious witness before that inquiry and commonly accepted as one of the two top men in the United States underworld and racketeering organization.
For two years at least this group of people has been operating in and around Montreal. Particularly in later months the Montreal police department has done outstanding work in hampering their activities. May I say here that the remarks I am making are not a criticism in any way, shape or form of the Montreal police department. It is not the local police departments or the local municipal authorities who are at fault, and I think
Law Enforcement
the mayor of Outremont will agree with me in that statement. It is not the fault of the local organizations that these racketeers have chosen to move into their centres and concentrate their activities there. The police departments of the area are outstanding and they are doing everything they can to break up the group and drive these men away. But it is not part of their job to pick up and prosecute undesirable aliens and drive them out of Canada.
The sort of thing these American racketeers and gangsters are doing in Canada is like a cancer. Once it is established it spreads, grows and extends its tentacles all over the country. A little while ago these men were firmly established in Montreal. Perhaps knowing that my investigation was being carried on, and certainly as a result of the work of the Montreal police department, they seem to have been temporarily driven underground. But we can be sure, I think, that they will come up again. I think they will come up in Canada, Mr. Speaker, because of conditions previously outlined, unless we drive them right out of this country. I referred previously to Mr. Banks, and I just emphasize that as one indication again of the attitude that this citizenship and immigration department is prepared to take on occasion towards people who have known criminal records.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to sum up very briefly. First, organized crime, and that I think of as crime based on bookmaking and betting, is a serious danger to any community in which it exists. Secondly, such organized crime has been operating in and around Montreal for a number of years. Third, most of the key people in this operation have been United States gangsters, thugs and racketeers. Fourth, this has been a matter of general knowledge throughout most of the period, and police records exist with the R.C.M.P. and local police on most, if not all, of these men. Fifth, it has been possible for working newspapermen to establish these facts and make them a matter of public record. Sixth, despite all this the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has remained quiescent and has not taken steps to rid Canada of these undesirable aliens. Seventh, there has been no indication to this house some six weeks afterwards, nor any report, that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration has taken official steps to remedy the situation or even investigate the charges made on February 22, both in the newspapers and in this house.

Law Enforcement
I appreciate the fact, Mr. Speaker, that with the cutting into my time of the arguments on points of order, I have gone a few minutes over my time. I close with this one sentence. For the reasons that I have set forth here, Mr. Speaker, with the information I have given, I find that I have no words strong enough which could be used in this House of Commons to condemn the performance of the present and former ministers of citizenship and immigration in connection with this matter. I feel that their inaction aids, condones and abets organized crime in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel it is absolutely essential, Mr. Speaker, that something be said in reply to this anthology of hearsay that we have had over two days. The hon. gentleman was very careful not to answer my question when I asked him if he had any personal knowledge of these matters or any sure knowledge of any kind. All he has done has been to read to us bits and pieces from various articles in various newspapers, and to talk about "common knowledge". I do not believe he would get very far in the courts prosecuting people on the basis of "common knowledge".
Now, when the hon. gentleman brought this subject up on February 22 by asking a question, I answered that I was advised that reports somewhat similar to the one he attempted to read-in fact, I believe it was the identical one-were brought to the attention of the R.C.M.P. and the immigration branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I said that an investigation had been under way for some time to ascertain whether or not there had been any violation of the laws which the federal government has responsibility for enforcing, and that of course included the Immigration Act. When I said that the R.C.M.P. were investigating reports similar to these, I meant precisely what I said.
The latest information I have is that that police investigation is still continuing. I do not think any reasonable person would expect a minister of citizenship and immigration to get up and give a progress report while a police investigation into some alleged crime was still going on. I can assure the hon. gentleman that as soon as the police or the hon. gentleman or anybody else puts in our hands information upon which we can take action in the courts with any reasonable chance of success, or on which we can deport any undesirable person who is here contrary to the law, there will be no time lost in doing that.


Mr. Speaker:: Since this question of quoting newspapers is one that often arises in debate, and about which certain points of order are quite often raised, I have looked into Beau-chesne's third edition further, and I find that on page 123, citation 303 refers to the responsibility a member must accept if he is quoting from a newspaper and basing his arguments on those quotations. The reference is to a question which is being asked on the orders of the day, as to whether or not the statement appearing in the press is true.
I am referring more particularly to the second paragraph of citation 303, and it seems to me there is a certain analogy there. The paragraph reads:
It is not in order to ask merely whether certain statements made in a newspaper are true; but attention may be drawn to such statements, if the member who puts the question makes himself responsible for their accuracy.
There is a certain analogy there between the principle advanced in this citation having to do with questions being asked of ministers and the situation with which we were confronted a moment ago. Whenever we base ourselves on a report in the newspaper or even paraphrase a document, I do not think one can avoid taking full responsibility as a member of this house for whatever one says.
(Translation):



ACADIAN BICENTENARY

Mr. Bona Arsenault (Bonaveniure):: Mr. Speaker, I will only take a few minutes of the valuable time of the house to voice a grievance. The house is already aware of the fact that on the occasion of the bicentenary of the deportation of the Acadians, a number of commemorative ceremonies will be held in various centres of the maritimes, of the province of Quebec and also in Louisiana where, as a matter of fact, some celebrations have already been held.
These observances, which have been organized in Canada as well as in the United States as a tribute to the survival and rebirth of the Acadian people, are of interest to over a million Canadians and Americans of Acadian descent.
They are also of interest to Englishspeaking Canadians from the maritimes, particularly those from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, who are generously co-operating in the organization of these celebrations.
There is an hon. member of the other place, for instance, a resident of Halifax, who has been enthusiastically taking part in this organizational work. Most of the maritime members of this house, in fact,

English as well as French-speaking, have extended to the organizers their kindest support. We know too that the state of Louisiana has already contributed a substantial amount to the fund set up by our Acadian cousins of that part of the United States for the purpose of these celebrations.
Next summer hundreds, even thousands, of visitors from Louisiana will come to this country, particularly to the maritimes. The conseil de la vie frangaise, under the skilled leadership of its secretary, Father Paul-Emile Gosselin, has already organized a useful tour of Louisiana by Canadians. It is also preparing several other friendship tours to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.
This year, then, a continuous flow of tourists will bear down upon the maritime provinces. These friendship tours, these pilgrimages made by Canadians from central Canada to the maritimes, and particularly to Nova Scotia, will no doubt continue from year to year. In that province, formerly called Acadia, there are several historical sites particularly dear to the hearts of Canadians and Americans of Acadian descent.
This constitutes for Nova Scotia a source of income that is hardly tapped and that the Canadian government should help to develop, if only from a strict touristic point of view.
We just learned, through the provincial treasurer, Hon. Mr. Fielding, that the government of Nova Scotia has just decided to grant a generous subscription to the fund for the organization of the Acadian celebrations which will be held this year in that province.
Moreover, the government of Nova Scotia, through its information office, just issued a fine stamp, with inscriptions in both official languages, to commemorate the bicentenary of the deportation of the Acadians. Both decisions, bespeaking broad-mindedness and generosity, are well calculated to promote national unity in this country and certainly deserve to be called to the attention of this house. They deeply stir those who, by reason of their Acadian origin, have maintained the love of tradition.
On behalf of the electors of Bonaventure county, whom I have the honour to represent in this house, about thirty thousand of whom are of Acadian origin, I wish to express deep gratitude to the premier of Nova Scotia and to his government for what they just did for the descendants of the first French pioneers who settled on the banks of the bays of Fundy and Chignecto.
The New Brunswick legislature, we have been assured, is about to subscribe, in turn,
Acadian Bicentenary
a substantial amount for the organization of these Acadian celebrations. Prince Edward Island also expressed its intention to contribute.
No doubt the government of the province of Quebec, which counts 350,000 people of Acadian descent, of whom about 100,000 settled there recently, will also wish to do its share.
We know indeed that the Canadian government already has done a great deal to help in the organization of these Acadian celebrations.
They have fortunately implemented several recommendations made by our colleagues from New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and by those of us who represent constituencies comprising large groups of people of Acadian origin. We are grateful for what they have done.
Moreover, the Canadian government was officially represented at the ceremonies in Louisiana last January and on March 24 last. I believe, our ambassador at Washington went to New Orleans and made a moving speech, in French and English, which deeply touched the hearts of all Louisianians.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government has not yet shown any intention of contributing financially to the organization of those commemorative celebrations of the Acadian festivities which will take place in various parts of the maritime provinces and in the province of Quebec during the year, or of issuing a postage stamp to commemorate the event. That is the grievance I wished to lay before the house.


Mr. Charles Cannon (Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, as member for Magdalen islands where 90 per cent of the electors are of Acadian origin, I take great pleasure in supporting the speech just made by my colleague, the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault), in connection with the grievance he has just stated.
As I have already spoken on this matter, it is not my intention to dwell upon it at length today. I wish to recall to the house that I spoke of the Acadian festivities in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne. I then stated that the organization of those ceremonies entailed heavy expenses and I suggested that the federal government should help pay the cost.
I shall not say any more, Mr. Speaker, and will limit my remarks to supporting what the hon. member for Bonaventure has just said. But I want to express my firm belief that the federal government should help pay the cost of these Acadian celebrations.
2870	HOUSE OF
Radio Reception-Arrow Lakes District
As I said in the other debate, people talk about the French survival in Canada, they admire the accomplishments of the French Canadian people, as distinct from the Acadian people. But, Mr. Speaker, I say that the Acadians are even more deserving than the French Canadians, for not only were they conquered but they were dispersed and they had to overcome a great many obstacles before they could come back to their country. Therefore they deserve that the government help them celebrate this second centenary.


Mr. Maurice Boisvert (Nicolei-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to take part in this debate, and if I do so, it will be only for a few moments.
Very few members know that part of the constituency I have the honour of representing here is called Little Acadia; several parishes of my riding of Nicolet-Yamaska were indeed formed, developed and settled by the descendants of Acadians and that is why they are known today as Little Acadia.
I do not know what the federal government could do, or what it should do. I can, however, assure the hon. members that if it took part in the anniversary celebrations that are being prepared in various places throughout eastern Canada, the Acadian population of my constituency would be grateful to this house and the government.
(Text):



RADIO RECEPTION, ARROW LAKES DISTRICT

Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise very briefly to bring a grievance to the attention of the house, and I do so after a special request from many of my constituents who will not be able to hear the Easter programs on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation network. I am sorry the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann) is not in his seat, but I am somewhat comforted by the fact that the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) is listening to what I have to say.


Mr. Sinclair:: As usual.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I know the Minister of Fisheries takes a very motherly interest in all things that occur in the interior of British Columbia.
The fact I wish to bring to the attention of the house is that there are still thousands of my constituents who are unable to hear Canadian stations or Canadian programs, or to listen to the C.B.C., while at the same time


millions of dollars are being spent on television in other parts of Canada. And we support that expenditure, of course.
For years chambers of commerce, farmers' institutes, labour organizations, the Canadian Legion and other organizations have passed resolutions asking that something be done to remedy this situation. As recently as last December a meeting was held in the Arrow lakes area which was attended by over 300 people from the Arrow-Slocan lakes. That meeting dealt with this question and passed a resolution urging the government to do something about improving radio reception at points where no programs, with the exception of those from the United States, are received.
During the last year low power relay transmitters have been established at Castle-gar and at Kaslo and I wish to say they are very much appreciated by the people in those districts. The very fact that these people are now able to receive C.B.C. programs from early morning until late in the evening has stimulated interest in these stations and strengthened the demand that something be done to serve the rest of the area. I have been told by officials of the C.B.C. that this can be done and I cannot understand why something has not been done to date.
It may be said to be a question of population but I do not think that that argument can hold because I know that low power relay transmitters have been established at points where the population is under 300 people, whereas these various organizations suggest that a transmitter at Nakusp would serve from 2,000 to 3,000 people; the station at Rosebery would serve some 2,000 to 3,000 people and the station at Balfour would serve from 3,000 to 4,000 people. So I contend that as far as population is concerned we should qualify for some attention in this regard.
I am told that it is also a matter of funds, but I would direct the attention of the minister and the officials to the fact that we are spending large sums of money to provide television service to the great majority of Canadians and I think it only right that pioneering people in the outlying districts should have a chance to listen to Canadian radio programs.
In that connection I have this year's report of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in which low power relay stations are dealt with on page 52 as follows:
These are satellite transmitters of low power which are attached to the wire line networks at repeater points. These stations are able to relay programs only and are not able to originate live

broadcasts. Communities serviced are those unable due to topography to receive any adequate signal from a Canadian radio station and yet not large enough to support their own local station.
That is exactly the situation in the parts of my constituency that I have mentioned and I think the size of the population fully justifies the installation of these stations. I have made inquiries about this and I am not altogether convinced that the reason is the reluctance of the C.B.C. to establish these stations.
I would direct the attention of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) and the house to the fact that already there are either telephone or telegraph wire services to these communities. From the information which I have gathered from various sources I am rather under the impression that the Canadian Pacific does not want to have to prop up its old poles in order to carry the two more wires that would be required to provide this service.
I do not think that the reluctance of any company, whether telephone or telegraph, to spend money to improve its lines should prevent communities having radio reception. These communities are producing considerable wealth. For example, last year over a million dollars worth of lumber products were shipped out of Nakusp, and other communities are producing minerals in a similar ratio. I bring this to the attention of the house at the request of the people of my constituency and of a number of organizations who direct my attention to the fact that they will not be able to hear the Easter programs sent out by Canadian stations.
These Canadians in Kootenay West are unable to enjoy Canadian programs while a great majority of Canadians are able to enjoy television. In fairness to these people I contend that serious consideration should be given regardless of the difficulties. The expense is not too great especially in relation to the expensive services which are rendered to other Canadians. Low power relay transmitters should be installed at the two or three points necessary so that these good people may be able to enjoy the C.B.C. and Canadian programs rather than to be forced to listen day after day, week after week, month after month and year after year to United States programs and newscasts.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John Palleli (Peel):: Mr. Speaker, the grievance to which I should like to refer this afternoon arises out of an announcement made the day before yesterday that 1,000 workers would be laid off at the Orenda engine plant. This would be in addition to the 2,000 which it was announced would be laid off by A. V. Roe company.
6, 1855
A. V. Roe Company-Lay-offs This will affect the unemployment situation considerably. The announcement has been made that certain steps will be taken to reallocate these people in other industries. I suggest that this recent announcement will have a most serious effect on the whole Canadian aircraft situation and it is for that reason that I bring it to the attention of the house.
We have in the Canadian aircraft industry the finest designers in the world who have been capable of designing civilian aircraft capable of competing with any aircraft in the world. As the result of government direction, civilian production of these designs has to be set aside to provide for the production of military aircraft. As a result of recent government orders cutting back military production we have had the laying off of aircraft workers who are skilled in their trade. These workers will be lost to the industry, their earnings and standard of living will be reduced.
The encouragement by the government for the design of civilian aircraft has been absolutely nil and the result of this policy will be that there will be nothing to replace the man hours lost in these aeroplane plants because of the reduction in military orders. I suggest that either a policy should be adopted of continuing production at the present level in order to keep these aircraft workers busy until the designers can get their civilian production going, or the announcement should be made by the government that they will not interfere with civilian production. The industry could then run a civilian production line parallel with the military production line.
We have had three separate lay-offs of 1,000 each directly due to government interference, and we do not know what the end will be. Each time we have had some assurance that there Will be no further lay-offs. I consider this a serious grievance to lay before the house and I submit there should be some definite announcement as to when there will be an end to this piecemeal separation of the aircraft industry.


Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Howe) and his parliamentary assistant, I cannot add anything to what I said the other day except to reassure my hon. friend that the step which I suggested then is being taken by the national employment service looking toward a replacement of these workers. Perhaps he would defer an answer to the longer-term production question till after the recess.

Winnipeg General Hospital



USE OF OFFICIAL


George Harris Hees: The matter I rise to speak about is not one of great importance, but I think it reflects on the dignity of the house to a certain extent.
I received in the mail this morning a copy of the circular of the World Wide Gum Company of Granby, Quebec. It is over the signature of a member of parliament and what I take exception to is the fact that the circular which was sent to the Georgian Bay Tourist Company was sent in a House of Commons envelope. I do not think it is in keeping with the dignity of the house that gum advertisements should be sent in official House of Commons stationery. I see that the Acting Postmaster General is in the house, and I hope he will take it up with the hon. member concerned and see that this practice is discontinued.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman may have seen a letter I addressed a year ago to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) when I once before was Acting Postmaster General. Of course, letters that are sealed are sacrosanct to the post office and the responsibility for the proper use of the frank and the official stationery is the responsibility of each one of us as a member of parliament and it is not the responsibility of the post office.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: Order. Before this matter goes any further I am going to suggest to the house-it caught me by surprise-that grievances which can be raised before supply is voted to Her Majesty are grievances, naturally, against the government of the country or over which the government of the country might be said to have some jurisdiction. Although I am not suggesting it is out of order, I think the point raised by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees) is perhaps more in the nature of a question dealing with the privileges of the House of Commons, over which we all hope the government of the country does not have authority. Therefore I am suggesting that the members might be agreeable that the matter should be left at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



WINNIPEG GENERAL HOSPITAL


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, to speak more than a few minutes at this stage but there is a crisis in my constituency of Winnipeg North Centre, in my city of 
Winnipeg and in my province of Manitoba, which I feel I should publicly draw to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin). It is a crisis which in my view could have been avoided if this government had acted long ago. It is a crisis the like of which may occur in other provinces throughout this country during the months and years that lie ahead, but again I say it can be avoided if the government will take action on one of its own promises.
I refer to the crisis that has developed with respect to the operation of the Winnipeg general hospital in the city of Winnipeg. That hospital finds itself faced with a terrific bank overdraft that the newspapers have headlined as a cash crisis, on the basis of which the board of trustees has given what is referred to as an ultimatum to the public authorities that unless the money is made available they will have to turn the hospital over to the public authorities.
The reason I raise the matter here, Mr. Speaker, and the reason I call it to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is, I think, as obvious to him as it is to everyone else. This kind of crisis-


Mr. Harris:: May I interrupt only to ask the fairly obvious question, can this not be debated on the estimates and, if so, is it not out of order at this time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I question the statement of the Minister of Finance that anything that can be debated on the estimates is out of order at this time. I would also point out that one of the features that is supposed to be basic to a grievance is that there is some element of urgency, and I suggest there is an element of very real urgency in this matter so far as the people who are affected are concerned.
My point to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which as I have said should be obvious, is that a crisis like this could have been prevented if he had long ago brought in a nation-wide plan of health insurance, and I tell him that unless he acts on that important matter there will be other crises like this throughout the country.
I said I would be brief, and I have only another sentence or two to say. I call upon the minister and upon the government to quit making a joke out of the fact that they have had health insurance in their platform since 1919, and to act on that question soon before more people suffer as a result of crises such as this one that now confronts us in Manitoba.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Administration service-
1. Departmental administration (including advisory committee on agricultural services), $496,998.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE General administration-
112. Departmental administration (including the former administration of employees' instalment purchase plan and employees' group insurance plans), $1,965,633.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR General administration-
173. Departmental administration, $685,605.
Item stands.
DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Defence services-
236. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $175,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies acquired by the Canadian forces after March 31, 1950, are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall, if the governor in council so directs, be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the said subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $4,269,726,540 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $2,443,441,346 will come due for payment in future years), $1,729,285,194.
Item stands.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
334. Departmental administration, $1,546,388.
Item stands.

[Stage Direction]
353. Departmental administration, $1,049,280. Item stands.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, April 1, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That items numbered 92 to 111 inclusive of the main estimates, 1955-56, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.
External Affairs
Mr. W. B. Nesbilf (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I think it was with considerable regret that yesterday the right hon. Prime Minister informed us that Sir Winston Churchill had resigned his portfolio as Prime Minister of Great Britain. I do not think any of us here would for a moment disagree that Mr. Churchill is deserving of his rest and retirement. He has been recognized not only as probably the greatest leader Great Britain has ever had-and some would even go as far as to say that the world has had-but certainly he has been the greatest leader the commonwealth has had.
Because Mr. Churchill has always taken such a great interest in what is now the commonwealth of nations I would like for the next few moments to direct my remarks to this association of nations. If not in years at least in sequence of events it has been a long time since the Pax Britannica of the last half of the last century stabilized the world. As all of us know only too well, the events of the first 50 years of this century have so changed the political aspects of our planet that such a picture would have been completely unforeseeable at the turn of the century. Great powers have risen and fallen; new waves of violent nationalisms have sprung up and are running their course, and the struggle for men's minds is presently continuing between two great political and economic ideologies.
The great British Empire, which has contributed so much to mankind in the science of government, law, fields of literature, the natural sciences and in human standards of decency and morality, has survived two great world wars and has been a victor in both. But what was once the British Empire has now so altered its original form, and is continuing to do so to such an extent, that it has become almost unrecognizable when compared with what it was when Sir Winston Churchill started his political career 50 years ago.
As all of us know, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the industrial revolution in Great Britain, together with her resources of iron and coal-and what is more important, the stability, perseverance and determination of her people-made Britain by far the most powerful country in the world and extended her territorial possessions, culture, language and government to every corner of the globe. Beginning in the last century, and almost completed in this century, a peaceful evolution has taken place and is continuing to run its course in the various territorial parts of what once constituted this great empire which was originally ruled from England. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India,

External Affairs
Pakistan and Ceylon have all become, largely in an orderly and peaceful manner, completely independent countries. Other sections such as Burma and the southern part of Ireland have not only become independent but have withdrawn from even a nominal association with the other countries that now form what we know as the British commonwealth of nations.
It is toward this arrangement known as the commonwealth of nations that I should like to direct my remarks for the next few moments. The commonwealth is a type of political arrangement that was previously unknown in recorded history, although in its earlier stages the Delian confederacy of classic Greece was in some ways similar. These independent countries forming the present commonwealth all have various and diverse nationalistic aims which frequently cause members of the commonwealth to come at least into diplomatic conflict with each other. For instance, India and Pakistan have certainly had some diplomatic conflict with each other over Kashmir. India and South Africa are not exactly upon the friendliest terms with each other. Also, these various independent units of the commonwealth compete with each other economically as, for instance, Canada and New Zealand with respect to the export of cheese. Yet despite all this, all these countries, whether they be kingdoms or republics, recognize Her Majesty as the titular head of the commonwealth.
People in other lands outside of the commonwealth find this paradoxical arrangement very difficult to understand. They ask, in the light of present conditions, what is the commonwealth? The units are independent and there is certainly no unanimity as far as foreign policy is concerned. They say "You struggle against each other for world markets, yet you call yourselves members of a family of nations with a queen as its head, although you are racially and culturally totally different groups".
Well, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that as things stand at the moment, and as far as the present trend of the commonwealth is concerned, I find myself among this group of inquiring people wondering what the commonwealth really is at the present time. We all know that at the present time various members of the commonwealth act as liaison officers and interpreters between the two great power blocs of the world, namely the United States on the one hand and the Russo-Chinese bloc on the other. We know that Canada often is called upon to interpret and possibly even mediate difficulties and differences of opinion between the United States

and England, and we have heard that India has a somewhat more direct pipe line to Peking than have some other members of the commonwealth. In that respect the liaison is created between communist China and the western world, a liaison that of course is becoming increasingly important at the present time.
We know that in most cases there is more than the usual friendly association between the governments of the commonwealth countries; we know that occasionally conferences are held to discuss undisclosed problems, whatever they may be. But what else is there to this association which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) and others have described as a friendly and easy-going association?
I should like to ask what is the basic difference between our association with commonwealth countries and say the republic of France or Brazil? Do we not have a friendly and easy-going association with these countries? What is the basic difference between the commonwealth and the United Nations? That is the question I have been wondering about, and I think a great many of us have been wondering about. I hope the Prime Minister or more probably the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he sums up the debate on this resolution will enlighten us a little further.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that if at all possible something should be done toward strengthening the relationship between various units of the commonwealth. There is no doubt that the present trend of commonwealth countries is to become less and less associated with each other, and the inevitable result will be the complete dissolution of the commonwealth.
This trend has become most marked and greatly accelerated since the end of world war II. As we all know, new power blocs and new nationalisms have sprung up around the world since then. Canada and England are members of NATO, whereas India, Australia and Pakistan are not. Australia and New Zealand are members of ANZUS and Canada is not. India apparently has aspirations to remain completely neutral and become the leader of the new nationalism in Asia. Pakistan seems to be more favourably inclined toward the west. We have all seen in the past that the break-up of great empires leaves a power vacuum, and in this world of ours some other power group will inevitably move into such a vacuum.
We do not have to go back very far in history to see this. The Austro-Hungarian empire, which had kept middle Europe unified for centuries and which acted as an effective block to the territorial ambitions

of other states for many years, was dismembered after world war I. This was a well-meant dismemberment, I do not doubt, and brings to mind Woodrow Wilson and his doctrine of self-determination of nations, a very commendable doctrine which has resulted in something that I am afraid Mr. Woodrow Wilson did not foresee. We all know that the only result of this dismemberment was a group of weak states in central Europe forming alliances with different power blocs, and in the end they were independently too weak to resist German aggression under the late unlamented Adolf Hitler.
For many years prior to world war II the press and others in the United States continually advocated the break-up of the British Empire, and accused England of repressing subject peoples. This attitude was even reflected by the late President Roosevelt on different occasions during world war II. Well, since world war II this group have had their wish. It would seem to me that these same persons are now perhaps wishing they had not been so anxious to see the British Empire dismembered, because this resulting power vacuum has already been created in places like Burma and India, with consequent alarm to the United States in its new role of world leader.
Oddly enough, Mr. Speaker, in India, Pakistan and elsewhere I understand from personal knowledge at the present time this group of Americans who so earnestly advocated freedom for these countries are by no means popular, and in India and Pakistan the British people are by no means unpopular. It is a rather strange result, but I suppose it points the moral that sometimes we should keep our noses out of other people's business.
However, to continue, if this same situation should ultimately result in a different way with the other nations of the commonwealth the whole course of history will undoubtedly be changed, and I am afraid not for the better. It is quite true that we have the United Nations, and that if open aggression were to take place against a country such as India the United Nations would come to India's aid, as some members of the United Nations did in the case of South Korea. However, in the world of today there are various ways of committing aggression, as we all know. For example country A, let us call it, may instigate and be completely responsible for aggression, yet sit blandly back and be like Caesar's wife, above reproach.
What I meant by this is that it is possible for country A, by promoting internal revolution and similar methods in country B, to 50433-182J
External Affairs
be responsible for setting up a government in country B that will acquiesce and make that country a satellite of country A. One of the most recent examples I can think of is the situation that developed between Russia and Czechoslovakia, and it is not inconceivable that a similar situation could happen in India, Indonesia or Burma at the present time, or in many other places. Undoubtedly the United Nations under such circumstances would find it theoretically very difficult to interfere in what would apparently be the internal affairs of a member nation.
This is just an example to show that it is not always wise to rely entirely upon the United Nations. I think it further shows that countries should develop their own defence forces or join in mutual aid pacts, as has been well illustrated throughout the world in cases such as NATO, ANZUS, SEATO to a lesser extent, and so forth. I think it might be wise-and I shall deal with this in a moment or two-if some consideration were given to forming some sort of commonwealth defence pact, not so much as a bulwark against world war III, although I think it would help in that respect, as against limited aggression on the periphery of the Soviet-controlled empire.
The type of war and aggression we have had almost constantly since 1945 has not been major war but limited aggression here and there using conventional weapons. All of us fear the possibility of a major holocaust with hydrogen bombs. But because of the very danger of such bombs, as has been pointed out to the house many times, we may never get that; but we may have constant pressure and piecemeal wars using conventional weapons and a constant whittling away at territories on the edge of the communist world. Some of the members of the commonwealth are not able to defend themselves, but by the formation of a pact with the other members of the commonwealth I think this type of aggression could be effectively resisted.
I fully realize that the problems would be very great in attempting to arrest the present trend among commonwealth countries. As I have already mentioned, the units of the commonwealth have different political aspirations, and often opposing economic aims and different cultural and racial backgrounds. However, I do feel that if some member of the commonwealth took the lead in this matter a much stronger relationship could somehow be worked out among the commonwealth countries. I think this strengthening of the bonds among the commonwealth countries is necessary as an added assurance for world peace and the ultimate prevention of world war III.

External Affairs
At present the two great armed giants of the world, the United States and Russia, sit scowling at each other on opposite sides of the world. There is no other country or group of countries at the present time that could even hope to challenge the might of either of these countries. If, however, the relationship between the commonwealth countries were strengthened it might conceivably lead to a third power bloc which would be powerful enough to act as a counterbalance to the United States and Russia. This, of course, is probably only a fond hope, but I do not think there is any harm in trying. I am not suggesting for one moment that at the present time the commonwealth countries should act with one voice in the matter of foreign affairs, because that is a practical impossibility; but I do feel that if steps were taken to strengthen the commonwealth relationship this one voice in foreign affairs might not, some time in the future, be as practically impossible as it is now.
I understand that efforts have been made by at least one member of the commonwealth to set up an intercommonwealth defence force, but that these efforts came to naught since the suggestion received a lukewarm reception on the part of two of the members of the commonwealth who participated in the talks, and I understand that Canada was one of them. However, it may be that the effort made was not strong enough or that the ground for the proposal was not properly prepared. As I mentioned earlier, we all know the great value of the commonwealth in acting as interpreter between the American and Russian blocs, but surely it could be something more than just that.
I should like to see Canada take the lead and openly make a determined effort to greatly strengthen the political bonds between the various units of the commonwealth. I suggest Canada because if England were to try to do it undoubtedly it would make countries that are newly independent, such as India, Pakistan and Ceylon, suspicious; but I do not think these countries would be suspicious of Canada or of our motives or intentions. Everyone knows we have no desire for territorial gain or any wish to dominate any other country either directly or indirectly.
Our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), as a result of his past work in the United Nations, is widely respected throughout the entire world, and I might say, properly so. I feel that he might be the man, if the government felt so inclined, to do the job of strengthening the commonwealth and arresting the present trend toward dissolution. A strengthened commonwealth which would make it quite clear to the world that in a great emergency it would act as a unit to

resist aggression could certainly be a decisive factor in preserving world peace. As I mentioned before, I think this is necessary because in the light of the events of the past few years I do not think the United Nations could be relied upon entirely to prevent armed aggression either openly or indirectly by subversion and internal revolution.
It is only a suggestion, but I feel the first step that might be taken toward closer commonwealth association would be to set up a central secretariat, possibly located in Canada or even in some other country if necessary. I know full well there is a close relationship between commonwealth countries through the high commissioners' offices.
I am quite aware of that, but the psychological effect of having a central secretariat for the commonwealth would be very great, and from then on I am sure other steps might well follow toward closer association.
Another suggestion would be that the prime ministers of the various commonwealth units might have meetings, more often if necessary but at least annual meetings. These would be just preliminary steps along the road in the opposite direction to which the commonwealth is going at the moment. As I mentioned earlier, I think if an effort were made by this country, with the ground properly prepared, there might be a stronger possibility of having some intercommonwealth defence force, which might well be the answer for reasons I have already pointed out and shall not repeat. Such a step is probably impractical at the moment, but I feel it could be worked out.
Nationalism can sometimes be a strong force for good but misguided nationalism- and we see evidence of it in nearly every commonwealth country, even here-is just the opposite. If each member of the commonwealth continues to be determined to be its own little empire builder and is not prepared to give up, in some small respect, any of its national sovereignty we shall, as the old expression goes, "all hang separately since we won't hang together." However, if we bind ourselves closer together the commonwealth family may yet be the deciding factor in saving the world from annihilation.
All through the world we hear the argument that every country must give up some of its national sovereignty for the purpose of some form of world government or international control, and I think the commonwealth, because of our past associations, would be a good place to start and set an example to others. I think it can be done if someone makes a determined effort and gives strong leadership; and again, and finally, I think Canada is the nation to do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise to support as strongly as I can, Mr. Speaker, the position taken by my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) when he spoke in this debate on March 24. As the minister and members of the house will recall, my leader made it crystal clear on that occasion, as he has on other occasions, that we feel the people of Canada do not want to get involved in United States policy with respect to Formosa, Quemoy, Matsu and other areas in the Far East. He made it clear also that we feel Canadian foreign policy should be made here in Ottawa, not in Washington.
In that position, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves in agreement with statements that have been made on earlier occasions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). In fact until fairly recently, perhaps until his recent speech before the Canadian Club in Toronto, we were satisfied with the position taken by the minister in that he said many times that Canada has no commitments in that part of the world other than any commitments that might arise because of our membership in the United Nations.
However, we feel from the statement made by the minister in his Toronto speech and from the explanation of that statement which he made in this house on March 24, that that position has been qualified. It seems to us that the position of the government now is that Canada does not agree with the attitude Mr. Dulles takes towards the possible defence of Quemoy or Matsu. It is the policy of the Canadian government that we do not intend to get involved in any war over the defence of these islands. Indeed, we are not committed to take part in any war with respect to the defence of Formosa. However, the minister goes on and suggests that what might start out as a small war could become a big war and if the United States found itself in a big war, no matter how it started, Canada would find itself involved.
Now, if the minister were merely saying that if a world-wide conflagration breaks out, particularly bearing in mind the power blocs that exist in the world today, because of our geographical position, to put it in the vernacular, we would have had it, one could hardly argue with him. But it seems to us that the kind of statement he has made-I refer to his statement in Toronto before the Canadian Club and his explanation of that statement in this house-weakens his position with regard to any further representations he might make to Washington.
We feel the result is that Canada has said that we regard ourselves as quite free to
External Affairs
make any decisions we want with regard to foreign policy, so long as they are agreed to by Washington. In our view the minister should take another look at the statements he has made and try to repair the damage that we feel was done. He should try to make it clear again to the United States that Canada does not believe it is a good idea to get involved in a war over Quemoy or Matsu; indeed, that we should not be a party to United States attempts to keep the Chinese civil war going.
If there is a difference between the approach of the United States to the situation in the Far East and the approach of the United Kingdom, I think it was well put in an editorial in the Ottawa Citizen last night. I have not the editorial before me, but as I recall its content it went something like this. The United States seems anxious to keep that civil war going in the hope that it may eventually result in Chiang Kai-shek getting control of the mainland again. On the other hand, the United Kingdom feels that it is time that civil war was liquidated and brought to a conclusion.
No one in this house can say of the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, Sir Winston Churchill, or of the new Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden, that either of these gentlemen is an appeaser, that either of these gentlemen would follow a policy of weakness. Yet we all know that it was the policy of Sir Winston Churchill's government, and we have every reason to believe it is the policy of Sir Anthony Eden's government, that the United Kingdom should not do anything to keep the Chinese civil war going.
We feel that our interests in this matter, despite our geographical proximity to the United States, are closer to the interests of the United Kingdom than they are to the interests of the United States. As I see it, United States foreign policy, particularly under the direction of Mr. Dulles, is built not so much on a diplomatic basis, not so much on a basis designed to avoid war itself, as it is in terms of military strategy. The United Kingdom on the other hand realizes that if a world war breaks out, those islands have had it.
I suggest we are in the same position. Geographically we are close to the United States; but if there should be a conflict between the two great powers in the world today it is now a trite statement to say that we are in the position of a Belgium, and we have had it.
In that sense I feel that our interests are very close to those of the United Kingdom. Both of us have a tremendous stake in avoiding the outbreak of war of any kind because

External Affairs
our two countries know that if that happens there will be devastation of our lands. For that reason, apart from the other connections we have with the United Kingdom, I feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be ranging himself and his policy with respect to the Far East more along the lines advocated by the government of the United Kingdom than along the lines advocated by the government of the United States as set out by Mr. Dulles.
I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs should take another look at Mr. Dulles' foreign policy. It is clear. He has spelled it out time and again. It is there for all to read. In my opinion it is not correct to call it a foreign policy; it is a military policy. When he speaks one feels he is not a diplomat who is trying to save the peace of the world, but rather a military strategist planning his moves on the assumption there is going to be an armed conflict in which the United States will be involved.
Mr. Dulles likes to draw that line we have heard him draw, starting from the Aleutians. I am going to describe the line he draws, but for obvious reasons I shall start at the other end. He draws a line from New Zealand up through Australia, the Philippines, Formosa, the Pescadores, Japan, Korea and the Aleutian islands. Does he stop there? No; in his mind that line goes on through northern Canada.
What is that line? Is it a line he has drawn because he is interested in the people on the Pescadores or the people in New Zealand or the people in Churchill, Manitoba? No; it is a defence line for continental United States. In other words all these countries through which that line is drawn by Mr. Dulles are pawns in American military defence strategy.
We should recognize that is what it is, and try to say to Mr. Dulles that we do not appreciate and do not approve of that kind of policy, because our interests appear to be different from the interests of people in the United States, under their present leadership. They seem to have the idea that there can be a war, and that if they have a line of defence around the world other people may perish and other lands may be devastated -whether it be Formosa, northern Manitoba or New Zealand-but that somehow or other the United States will remain intact.
I am sure we in Canada do not look at it in that way, any more than do the people of the United Kingdom. The people of the United Kingdom know that their only defence is in the maintenance of peace, and I suggest that we in Canada know the same thing. We realize that, despite this grandiose

Maginot line that Mr. Dulles would draw from New Zealand right around to Newfoundland, if war broke out there would be devastation and suffering in all the countries through which that line goes.
So I say that this policy on the part of Mr. Dulles is there for all to see and to observe. He spells it out clearly enough. But I repeat that, as I see it, it is not a diplomatic policy. It is not a position arrived at by a foreign minister. It is a position arrived at by a minister of war. It is a matter of military strategy. And I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that, as I have known him across the years, I do not believe he thinks in those terms at all. He thinks rather of his job in terms of the maintenance of peace. He thinks of his job as concerned with getting at the causes of war. He has made many speeches along that line which I would have been very proud to have made myself, and I am satisfied that is his approach-the approach of a foreign minister rather than that of a minister of defence or a minister of war.
I strongly appeal to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as did my leader on March 24, to take another look at this United States policy in which we are involved as just another pawn along with the Pescadores, along with Korea, along with the Aleutians, along with New Zealand and Australia, for the defence of continental United States, on what I say is a false premise, the notion that if you have a strong enough Maginot line some people somewhere can be protected.
Our interests, I repeat, are like those of the United Kingdom. We know, with them, that our only real defence is in the avoidance of war; and we in this group feel that we are expressing the views of many Canadians when we say we do not think the present policy of Mr. Dulles contributes to the avoidance of war as much as would policies which I am satisfied our Secretary of State for External Affairs could advocate, if he would stand up a little straighter on his own two feet and express his own views, as Canadian views, rather than always defending the views put forward by Mr. Dulles.


Mr. Pearson:: May I ask the hon, member a question? Does he not feel that it is the purpose of Mr. Dulles in his policy, whatever my hon. friend may call it, to avoid war?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it is Mr. Dulles' primary purpose to keep war away from the United States, but I am not convinced that Mr. Dulles is as concerned with avoiding war completely as I believe the minister is. If he can keep war away from the United States-if he can keep it in the Pescadores,

in Quemoy, in Matsu or in northern Canada -his aim is met. His aim is to keep war away from continental United States.
I think my hon. friend across the way would like to see the whole world spared the holocaust and tragedy of another war. I am sorry that my hon. friend, even while I am asking him to stand on his own two feet and talk plainly to Mr. Dulles, chooses rather to stand up and defend him. Mr. Dulles does not feel the need of any defence so far as his position is concerned. He stands up and speaks out very clearly and very plainly, and I think our foreign minister should do the same thing, and advocate more clearly a strong Canadian policy.
In connection with this whole business of the defence line, the line for the defence of the United States which Mr. Dulles draws, I have said that while I have heard him draw it, starting from the Aleutians and going around and down to New Zealand, we all know that in his mind it goes across northern Canada; certainly through the distant early warning line, as well as perhaps through the McGill fence and also through "Pinetree". But this does raise some interesting questions. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that we are not necessarily committed to any war the United States may get into, but that we could not help getting involved in the consequences. I think some attention might be paid to the question that was-


Paul Joseph James Martin: He did not say we would be; he said we might be.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I never said we could not help being involved, in any context in which my hon. friend has used the expression.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister said where the United States was involved-and if there is any difference I would be glad to have it corrected-we might-


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is an important difference.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not wish to do my hon. friend any injustice. I would tell him that I think he has it in him to enunciate the kind of policy that would ease world tension if he would stand up and express his own views, instead of feeling that he has to go along so easily and so readily with the views of the United States secretary of state.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have no such feeling.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think at some point the minister should deal with the question to which I started to refer, and that was discussed a while ago in Saturday Night, as to what Canada's position would be with respect to United States troops-air force or others- in this country, if the United States should
External Affairs
get into one of these smaller wars that we would not regard as a Canadian war. As he knows, it is pretty generally remembered that one of the reasons Mr. King did not want to go ahead in 1938 with the British commonwealth air training plan was this very point as to what would happen if we had British troops in Canada at a time when Great Britain became involved in a war into which Canada had not gone. Would we have to intern those troops in order to assert our neutrality, or would failure to do that automatically place us in the position that we were at war?
That is a question which can arise under the present situation, particularly in view of the minister's statement that if the United States got into a small war over Quemoy or Matsu we would not be in it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would my hon. friend apply that argument to our troops in Europe?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asking the question, and I think it should be dealt with by the minister. He should deal with the question asked by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as well as the question I have asked. Surely our primary concern is as to our position regarding troops of another nation in our country, particularly in view of the minister's uncertain statement. I think I am justified in using that word describing what our position would be if the United States gets into a war.
We in this house are proud of our Canadian sovereignty. If I may refer to the remarks of the last speaker, we are proud of our position within the commonwealth of nations. We are proud of that association, but we are proud of the fact that within that association we have sovereignty and autonomy. One of the things which took a long while to develop was our own voice as distinguished from that of Westminster in foreign affairs. It is a matter of regret to some of us that the parroting of the foreign policy of the United Kingdom seems to have been exchanged for the same thing with respect to Washington. There is a touch of irony about it in that we seem to have reached this state of affairs at a time when by a process of juxtaposition we now find our interests much closer to those of the United Kingdom in world politics and in foreign policy than used to be the case.
I do not advocate that we should go back to the former position of having our foreign policy written for us at Westminster, but I suggest that the views being held over there at the present time have an element of wisdom in them which is lacking in some of the views being advocated in the country to the south.

External Affairs
There are just one or two other things I want to say in support of the position taken by my leader when he spoke on March 24. We should be giving serious thought, in so far as we have any influence at all, to the continuing policy of the United States in making these atomic and hydrogen bomb tests. We have been able to get a little information out of the government by questions on the orders of the day or on the order paper, but it is precious little. Some of us feel that there is a conspiracy of silence, an unwillingness to tell the people all that is known by scientists and those in the ranks of government with regard to radioactive precipitation. There seems to be such a tendency to rely on atomic and nuclear weapons as a means of defence that we do not know whether as part of our desire to build up that defence we are doing irreparable damage to future generations.
It seems to me that the Canadian people should be treated as grown-ups and that this conspiracy of silence should be broken. We should be told whether any knowledge is available on the matter, and if knowledge is available we should be told what the level of radioactivity is and whether it is doing any present or permanent damage to human life upon this earth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: In fairness I think my hon. friend should refer to the statement given on Monday, when there certainly was not a reluctance to give all the information available at this time as far as this country is concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the minister's view, but I have had three questions on the subject on the order paper since March 25 and they have not yet been answered. Several of us have asked questions on the orders of the day to which we have not been able to get satisfactory answers. I read with interest the statement the Minister of National Health and Welfare put on Monday's Hansard, but it seems to me that that statement did not answer the fundamental question as to what the level of radioactivity now is as a result of these test explosions, and how far away that level is from the level that could do damage to the human race. Let us not run the risk of doing irreparable damage to future generations, in the name of secrecy, or in the name of defence that might not be defence at all.
I have here a copy of the department's publication External Affairs which deals with the matter, in which it is indicated it is no use our asking the United States to cut down on these tests unless the U.S.S.R. will cut down on them as well. I agree that both
TMr. Knowles.]
these great powers should be asked to withhold these test explosions, but if you cannot persuade the other side are we not being a bit foolish to have both sides running off these explosions if by that result we double the amount of radioactive fall-out with the possibility of going beyond the danger point? This is another one of the fields in which we feel that the Secretary of State for External Affairs should speak strongly on Canada's behalf, if not to the United States authorities at Washington at least within the councils of the United Nations.
I do not want to take up time unduly in this debate, so I shall just refer in passing to two other subjects upon which I had intended to comment. First of all I want to say that I am glad to note that the press of the country for the most part is beginning to accept as being not a bad idea an exchange of parliamentary delegations between the Soviet union and other countries. Statements made in this house on the part of the government so far have been guarded, but at least it does seem to be recognized by some of the newspapers that if such a project were carried through it could not do any harm.
I want to support that idea. Surely an exchange of opinions, surely getting to know what life is like in different parts of the world, cannot do any harm. I do not know whether I can say this without getting a retort of the kind that one gets here in parliament, but I do not think it did me any harm when I had the opportunity of spending a week or so in Moscow back in 1946. I think I learned a few things about the people there. I was interested in the fact that I did have some conversations with people there, some at a semi-official level, and on occasion with people on the street. I do not think it would do others harm to have such a visit, and I am equally sure it would not do any harm from our point of view to invite delegates from that country to come and spend some time freely in our country. It might not do all the good that some might hope, but it certainly would not do any harm. It might help to ease tension if there were a flow of understanding, and I hope we will go ahead with the idea.
The only other comment I wish to make before I resume my seat is something I have commented on before. In fact I feel that I could not partake in a debate on external affairs without saying it. I urge even greater participation by Canada in economic aid and technical assistance programs. Some of the best speeches on this general subject have been made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I was sorry that on

March 24 he found it necessary to try to deflate the idea that economic aid could play as important a part in easing tension and building up world peace as some of us think it could. I will be fair to him by admitting that in that speech he said it was important, but he also said-and I quote from page 2338 of Hansard-
-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.
Mr. Speaker, none of us would claim that economic assistance, particularly if it is handing out aid on a relief basis, can itself buy off communism or save the peace. But what I do not like about statements such as that is that they seem to be excuses for keeping the program down to the rather low proportions of Canada's participation in this field.
There is a great deal that could be done along the lines that have been set out by the minister on a number of occasions. Much could be done by greater support to organizations like the world health organization. There is much that could be done by greater support of training programs, bringing people from other countries to Canada, training and educating them here so they could go back to help put their own countries on a better economic footing. There is much to be done in teaching these people the ways of democracy and the way of life we have found.
I submit that until we have gone all out, until we have increased many times what we are doing now in terms of economic aid, there is no room for saying this will not do the trick. We have not yet tried it to a worthwhile extent; we have just scratched the surface. In my view there is a tremendous opportunity for the easing of world tensions, for the removal of the causes of war and building the foundations for a better world in a vast program of economic aid. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who in his heart is, I think, just as sold on this type of program as any of us, will not make these statements in which he detracts from the value of economic aid but will push for an even greater program as part of an over-all aim to save the peace and make for a future that instead of bringing war will hold a better life for all mankind.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to disagree strongly with the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of Mr. Dulles' efforts to keep the United States and the world out of war. I think that Mr. Dulles makes mistakes-we 50433-183
External Affairs
all do-but I believe he is certainly intent on keeping the world out of war just as much as his own United States. I think it is rather unfair to imply that he would sacrifice other countries in a war as long as the United States remained out.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs made very clear the other day that Canada could not remain neutral if the United States became involved in a major war. I feel sure that the great majority of Canadians agree with that statement; and because we are so closely linked to the United States in both peace and war I think we are entitled to point out any actions which we believe are not in the best interests of our mutual safety and well-being.
The latest instance when I think a protest should have been made was at the time of the publication of the Yalta papers. This action, together with the pressure which has been brought to bear by Senator Knowland to publish the Tehran and Potsdam papers, has, I believe, made future high-level secret diplomacy almost impossible. I believe that our chances of avoiding another world war have decreased accordingly. In the past many wars have been avoided because representatives of both sides met in private and, in off the record discussions, ironed out the matters in dispute. This requires give and take on both sides, and it would often have been impossible for either side to give way and come to an agreement if the participants had thought their conversations would be made public in a relatively short space of time.
I believe that in recent years the ineffectiveness of so-called open diplomacy has been demonstrated time and again, both in the security council and in the big four conferences which have been held during the past ten years. It has always been recognized by those engaged in diplomatic work that effective diplomacy can only be carried on in private, and in the knowledge that records of the discussions will not be made public. I feel sure that the professionals of the United States state department recognize this fact; but despite this, those in charge of the political strategy of the Republican party have chosen to greatly reduce the effectiveness of any future diplomatic discussions between the United States and other powers with whom they may be negotiating.
After the publication of the Yalta papers, and the demands of Senator Knowland that the Tehran and Potsdam papers should be published as well, diplomatic discussions participated in by the United States in the future will be no more effective than other open discussions have been in the past.
I believe the only explanation for this extraordinary action is purely political. It

External Affairs
seems to me that the Republican party is so anxious to try to discredit the Democratic party as communist sympathizers that the secretary of state saw fit to authorize the publication of the Yalta papers. The world is required to pay a very high price for a doubtful political game by the party in power in the world's most powerful nation.
The only explanation I can find for the Canadian government not vigorously protesting against this action is that this government understands so well the practice of saying anything which they think will gain votes for them at election time. For example, for 36 years now they have been promising health insurance before every election, with not the slightest intention of ever implementing that promise. So this action of the Republican party in this instance does not appear to the Canadian government to be anything more than routine political practice.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that President Eisenhower will soon make it clear that the Tehran and Potsdam papers will not be published, and that the records of all future secret conferences participated in by the United States will remain secret. I believe that only by doing so can high-level diplomacy return to any degree of effectiveness, and our chances of avoiding another world war remain good.
We have told the United States that we will back her 100 per cent if she becomes involved in a major war, and all we are saying to her now in criticizing this action is, "For heaven's sake don't destroy the best known means of avoiding war." I think if the Canadian government had shown more courage in the past in voicing our objections to United States actions which adversely affected us, and with which we disagreed, we would not find ourselves today treated as poor relations in matters affecting trade between the two countries.
I am referring, of course, to the practice of the United States imposing artificial trade restrictions on Canadian products whenever pressure is brought to bear by United States producers. Because the Canadian government has always meekly submitted to the imposition of any trade restrictions the United States government saw fit to impose, they have imposed restrictions whenever and wherever it suited them to do so, and additional restrictions are being considered today.
The United States has always treated Canada as a happy dumping ground for surplus production, and they have kept their factories open and workers employed when Canadian factories were being closed or going half time, and men were being laid off. This, of course, is not the fault of the United States government. They have simply

taken advantage of our easy-going regulations, which have not made this kind of thing impossible.
I think the time is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, for Canada to speak a lot more forcibly and strongly to our neighbours about things which adversely affect us, and with which we disagree and believe unreasonable. Until we do we can only expect to go on being treated as poor relations in matters of trade and other questions which affect our welfare.


Mr. Ray Thomas (Wetaskiwin):: Like other hon. members who have spoken in this debate I intend to confine myself mainly to the Far Eastern situation. However, I should like to say I was rather disappointed when the minister made his statement that he did not make greater reference to the trouble spots in the Middle East.
It would appear to me that with the Arab nations in an uneasy peace with Israel we are apt to have a major conflagration break out at any time. It is about time the United Nations got down to facts and placed the issue squarely before the opposing sides with respect to the trouble they are having there, telling them it is about time they settled down to a definite peace treaty so we can get away from these various border incidents, brought about mainly by the buffer zones between the two factions.
I think, too, it is about time that we told them that unless the United Nations rehabilitation contributions to the Arab refugees are used for rehabilitation they will be stopped. I believe these payments have gone on long enough for the maintenance of those people in the refugee camps. It is about time they were forced to get out and make their own way somehow. It should be made perfectly clear to them that any further rehabilitation grants for the refugees will be used for rehabilitation only and not for maintenance within the camps.
I am going to agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on one thing only, namely that we should increase our financial assistance to the underdeveloped countries of southeast Asia. Because of the small amount of assistance that is going into those countries we are losing the propaganda battle for the souls and the minds of those people. It is quite easy for a communist to walk in there and preach his theories of equality and have those poor downtrodden people believe them, because they cannot realize that the equality that is being preached is equality of oppression rather than equality of opportunity.
However, they tell us that a person who is underprivileged will always listen to big

promises before he will accept and be influenced by a small measure of assistance. Rather than have this half-hearted help go into the south Asian countries we should do everything in our power to see that the suffering of those poor people is alleviated. We should go as far as we can in this assistance. But here is where I differ with the members of the C.C.F. party. I do not think we should at any time grant assistance at the expense of our own preparedness program, because that is of the utmost importance.
As far as Viet Nam and Indo-China are concerned, I think the Canadian delegation on the truce team there is doing a good job. I should like to offer my congratulations at this time to those people who are there doing the best they can, but they have a tremendous job. There is a lot of subterfuge. The so-called troubles that are cropping up among the people are communist inspired, merely put forward as a means of screening the true activities of the communists in Viet Nam.
I would appreciate very much if the minister would make some sort of statement in his rebuttal about the troubles they are having in Saigon at this time. I should like him to tell us whether or not it is an honest difference of opinion among the Viet Nam peoples themselves, or whether it is more or less communist inspired trouble that is being stirred up there at this time.
Peace in Indo-China was brought about with the proviso that general elections will be held in July of 1956. Consultations are supposed to be held between the respective authorities of the two zones from July 20 of this year onward. I wonder whether, when drafting the proviso-I am not too conversant with the details-it was definitely laid down who those competent authorities were to be. If so, who are they, and are they to be trusted? It would appear from our past experience with the communists in Formosa, Korea and elsewhere, that they are not to be trusted. They are not too willing to give up anything they have or to allow free elections to be held which might mean they would lose some area they already hold. For example, under the Korean set-up there were to be free elections held in Korea in 1947. When 1947 rolled around the North Korean reds refused to allow free elections to be held. We do not have to go back that far, because the same thing holds true in East Germany. I do not know when we are to reach any sort of settlement between the two Germanys and have free elections, because it is quite apparent that the communists are unwilling to relinquish anything they have.
I think, too, that we are going to have to be very careful this same thing does not 50433-183J
External Affairs
happen in Burma, in Thailand and in some of the other countries of southeast Asia. For example, the prime minister of Thailand, when speaking at the SEATO meeting not long ago, stated that there were something like 20,000 so-called free Thailand troops assembled in Yunan province of red China, which could be used for a jumping off place for an invasion against Thailand itself. I understand the Burmese premier also stated that they had the same state of affairs on the northern Burma border. There they have a bunch of Burmese communists waiting for an opportunity to invade northern Burma and possibly divide that country in the same way that Korea and Indo-China have been divided.
There is one other point that has nothing to do with the communist element in southeast Asia, but can the minister indicate whether or not any progress has been made in the withdrawal of the nationalist troops in northern Burma? He will recollect that a year ago last fall a formal protest was lodged with the United Nations by the Burmese government, and it was suggested at that time that the Chinese nationalists should do everything in their power to convince these people that they should go back to Formosa. That was quite a sore spot as far as the Burmese government was concerned, and we have not heard too much about the matter since. I should like the minister to tell us in his rebuttal whether or not there has been any mass withdrawal or whether subsequent withdrawals have only been on a piecemeal basis.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I may not have much, if any, time for rebuttal, perhaps I could answer that question at once by saying that a good proportion of these so-called Chinese troops have been moved back to Formosa from Burma.


Ray Thomas: I am glad the minister has made that statement, because there is no doubt that was one factor that could possibly turn Burma against the western world in the event of warfare commencing in Asia.
As to the islands of Quemoy and Matsu, I am not sure whether they are too strategic.
I do not have the information, and it is a matter for military opinion. But as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Low) mentioned the other day, they can have quite a value from the point of view of morale as far as the Chinese nationalists are concerned. Canada has no commitment there consequent upon actual invasion of the islands, but I suggest that they certainly are a matter of great interest to the Asiatic peoples and stand as a symbol of whether or not we are going to retreat any further. There is no doubt

External Affairs
that the Chinese reds are going to take everything they can get. They are going to keep walking ahead just as long as they can do so without hindrance. We must also remember that since the Chinese communists came into power in 1949 they have simply led the world from one crisis to another, in Korea, Indo-China and Tibet. All the time they have been gradually working their way into the other countries of Asia, and it is about time they were stopped.
We have to lay down a certain line and say they are not going to be allowed to go beyond it. We have to make sure they do not go beyond it. Whether or not the islands of Matsu and Quemoy should constitute that line I do not know. That depends entirely on the tactical situation, and that is a matter for the military authorities to decide. As to the Chinese reds having good intentions, in my opinion their intentions are in no way honourable. I do not think their only aim in Asia is to regain Chinese territory, including Formosa and the Pescadores, because in my view they intend to proceed farther and farther into Asia and spread their tentacles as far as they can.
It has been said in the house from time to time that the ultimate aim of the communists is world domination. That applies not only to the Moscow reds but to the Chinese reds as well. Not long ago Mr. Khrushchev, when speaking at a meeting between the Chinese and the Russians, said:
The Chinese people's republic has transformed itself into a powerful factor in the liberation struggle of all oppressed peoples against the forces of imperialist reaction and colonial enslavement for their freedom and national independence. The Chinese people's republic has entered the world arena as a great power and has become a mighty force in the general struggle of the freedom-loving peoples for international security and peace throughout the world.
This means only one thing, that the Chinese reds have joined with their Russian brothers in an effort to spread communism throughout the world and to free all the peoples of the world, whether or not they want to be free. I also doubt-and here is where I differ very strongly with the members of the C.C.F. group-whether or not withdrawal from Matsu, Quemoy or any other place would serve the interests of peace. Rather, I think it would work the other way. If we give up without a struggle here, there and everywhere, it is going to encourage them to take one more little piece of land. It is all too reminiscent of Munich and the peaceful overtures made to Hitler prior to 1939 when he took everything he could get and kept on going until he forced us into war.
I think the only possibility is to serve notice on the Chinese reds now that they

have gone as far as they can go, and we should threaten them with retaliation if they go any farther. I do not think that would be anything to start a world war. Peace and security cannot be promoted by indefinitely piling up one-sided concessions to the reds. For example, may I refer to the radio comment from Peking on the withdrawal from the Tachen islands. They said:
The liberation of these islands has created favourable conditions for our people's liberation army in the liberation of Formosa.
That is plain enough. They are going ahead unless we put our foot down. I forget the exact words the Secretary of State for External Affairs used, but when he was making his statement the other day he said that it was significant there was no resistance to the withdrawal from the Tachen islands. I do not think there is anything significant in that because nobody is going to fight for something they are going to get anyway. In my opinion that withdrawal did more to hurt the prestige of the western nations in the east than anything else could have done.
I think one outcome of our withdrawal from time to time is the present attitude of the Chinese reds. They are actually contemptuous now. When they were asked in 1951 to join in a conference respecting Korea they accepted, but when they were recently asked to confer with the security council of the United Nations they simply said they would not unless they could come there on their own terms, which meant removing the Chinese nationalists from the United Nations and giving the Chinese communists their seat. That indicates they are becoming more and more contemptuous and more and more sure of themselves as our withdrawals become more general. I believe another result of all these withdrawals is that the non-communist peoples are beginning to become a bit more afraid that maybe we are not going to back up our statements of policy and our threats against the communists. The free nations, particularly the United States, did a lot of big talking about what they were going to do before the fall of Dien Bien Phu, and it certainly did not help our prestige in southeast Asia one bit.
As I said a few moments ago, we also aided in the evacuation of the Tachen islands, and that did not do any good. I think any further withdrawal by the western nations could quite easily be interpreted as a sign of weakness by the southeast Asian countries, and it would certainly weaken our bargaining powers as far as any cease-fire is concerned.
The reason I believe a stand now would not cause any world war is that I do not think the communists are ready for it yet. I do not

think 'Russia is going to allow the Chinese to throw her into a war at this time because she is not in any position to back up China to the extent she would like, so far as arms and munitions are concerned.
The Soviet goals, as we all know, are to advance the Soviet sphere of influence so far as they can into Europe, Asia, the Middle East and so on, and at the same time retain the predominant position which they attained in 1950 in eastern Europe, Mongolia and North Korea. I think Russia realizes that so far as Mongolia and Korea are concerned she has lost a lot of ground, because the Chinese reds have taken a lot away from her. Russia feels also that she has to protect her own people within the Soviet union, at least to an extent which would stop them from engaging in out and out revolution. Russia is not going to go beyond that point in assisting the Chinese reds.
Communist China, of course, has the ultimate aim of spreading not only the communist influence but the Chinese communist influence all through Asia. It is significant to note that the Asiatic communists are turning now to Mao and his government rather than to the Kremlin. As a result, I think by holding these people back at the moment, eventually their disagreements are going to become so great that they are going to have a little scrap among themselves. As long as everything is going their way and they are walking ahead without any trouble at all there certainly is not any hope of breaking up that agreement and friendship which they now have. We have to stand firm. I think the differences in aims between the two peoples, and the places where they conflict, are going to do a great deal toward breaking down the communist influence throughout the world. I do not think they can get along among themselves.
I have just one more point, Mr. Speaker. This debate has been very interesting, in that at least it has shown the difference in viewpoints between the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the C.C.F. party. I should like to quote from Time magazine of about three weeks ago under the heading "Ontario" and the subheading "Ousted Editor". It says:
The seven money-making newspapers of the Southam group cover a wide arc of the political spectrum, but none edges farther leftward-on the editorial page, if not in the news columns-than the lively and unpredictable Ottawa Citizen. Even after cautiously conservative Robert Southam, 40, took over as publisher two years ago, editor Charles James Woodsworth, 45, crusading son of J. S. Woodsworth, founder of the C.C.F. (socialist) party, conti lued to pursue his vigorously left of Liberal policy. But when Woodsworth came out
External Affairs
against the rearmament of West Germany, publisher Southam got fed up. Word leaked out last week that he had quietly sacked his editor.
Here is an interesting fact.
Woodsworth was admired in Ottawa for his biting wit, sharp writing and occasional Donald Duck editorial rages. His portside politics evidently never troubled Canada's ruling Liberals. Last year, the department of defence flew him on a two-months junket through the Far East and invited him to lecture on Asian problems to troops of the 25th brigade in Korea. He was also a frequent lecturer at Department of External Affairs briefing sessions. With some lecture and television dates ahead-
And so on. It would seem to me that with the at least apparent opposite viewpoints of the minister and the C.C.F. party, the last thing the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs would want spread among the troops would be the idea of compromise that has been put forward by a follower and advocate of the C.C.F. socialist policies,


Mr. Coldwell:: May I just make a correction, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Charles Woodsworth is not and never has been a member of the C.C.F. party. In addition to that, I imagine the minister believes in freedom of speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I might add that he is not a lecturer in the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Winch:: What is left now?


Major James William Coldwell: Apparently they want nobody to speak except those who express their viewpoint. What a tragedy it would be if they came to power.


Ray Thomas: I assure hon. members that if they do not like it, it is quite all right. I am quoting from Time magazine and at no time did I make any statement as to what I thought his policies were. What I want to know is, if his policies are as stated in this article, then why is he lecturing to either Canadian troops or the Department of External Affairs? Mind you, I have nothing against the beliefs of my socialist friends. I do not like their beliefs, but they certainly have had every opportunity to express themselves, and so they should. But it would seem strange to me that the government would want people briefing their employees and speaking to the army when the apparent beliefs of the speaker are actually the opposite of those of the government.


Major James William Coldwell: That would be dictatorship, which I do not think the Liberal party believes in any more than we do.


Ray Thomas: I cannot see it in that way, because I would hate to see the armed forces of this country being taught a compromise attitude to the point where they do not know

External Affairs
whether they are standing on their feet or their heads, or what they are fighting for. We know what we are fighting for and we do not believe in compromise with the communists if it means we are going to be rushed into slavery. So the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) can say what he likes-


Major James William Coldwell: I shall, too.


Ray Thomas: Quite, and he often has. I disagree with him heartily in most of his policies, particularly his socialistic policy. I do not like the idea of having the young men of our armed forces taught compromise when the last thing on earth we need in this country is a compromise attitude toward communism. Time and time again they have told us what they are going to do. They are going to conquer us by one means or another, and we have to fight that in spite of the [DOT]compromise policies of the C.C.F.


Major James William Coldwell: They are not compromise policies, by any means.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in the debate I would open my remarks by making a very brief reference to the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin (Mr. Thomas), who has just taken his seat. He has taken us through a remarkable tour de force. In a matter of 30 minutes he has expressed his views on Germany, Israel, Egypt, Mongolia, Indo-China, Korea, Quemoy, the Matsus, and communism, and made reference to other political parties. Is that not something? Is it not extraordinary when any man can execute such a tour de force in a period of 30 minutes, when speaking in a debate on external affairs?
It is not my intention to follow the example of the hon. member. As a matter of fact I am not going to speak on any of the phases of external affairs mentioned by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin, nor do I intend to mention communism, nor do I intend to imply anything about any political parties in the House of Commons. There is only one phase of external affairs about which I wish to express my opinion, and that is the position and policy of Canada in this age of thermonuclear accomplishments and developments, a matter which is of major concern to all of us irrespective of party, and irrespective of whether we support the government or the opposition.
I feel very deeply on the matter. I have no hesitation in saying that perhaps the limitations of my vocabulary and eloquence will not permit me to express the thoughts that arise in me. To the best of my ability, however, I am going to put them forward and,

unusual as it may be for me, I shall quote at some length from certain references I have before me.
I have said that I am going to discuss only one issue, and that I shall discuss it on a strictly non-political basis. All will agree that Canada is a wonderful country, a country with a population in the neighbourhood of 15 million, and that with this comparatively small population it is one of the outstanding countries of the world. If I remember correctly we are the third trading nation. In his budget speech last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) said that other countries look with envy at our fiscal policy. I believe I am safe in saying that at times of world conflict, on a per capita basis this country ranks very close to the top in matters of contributions of manpower and financial assistance. I believe I am also safe in saying that in respect of all various aspects of the work of the United Nations, next to the great powers-the United States, Great Britain and the U.S.S.R.-Canada stands at the top in its work on the committees.
What I am building up to is this. We can all take pride in our country and its accomplishments. Because of our status and our influence among the nations, although a nation of only 15 million people, can we not give consideration now to providing a lead in matters of policy and program in this trying age and these troubled times resulting from the development of thermonuclear weapons? In other words can we not be more emphatic and serve as a leader rather than a follower in international affairs? I am not for one moment attempting to detract from the stand Canada has taken, or from the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; but I do believe we can go further and do more. I believe Canada can make an outstanding contribution if we are firmer, more deliberate and more emphatic, and if we give a lead.
There can be no question but that we live in trying times. I would not like to have the job held by the Secretary of State for External Affairs; I would not want it for any money. It must be a terrible responsibility. I am sorry the house has not had a full report as to what went on at the recent commonwealth conference. Indeed we are almost in the dark as to the discussions and the conclusions. I have never set myself up as a prophet, but if I were to do a little guessing, and if the procedure followed at the last conference was that followed at previous ones, I would be reasonably sure that on the final day, at the conclusion of the meetings, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent), in his position of priority,

would have made a concluding address. And, sir, if we could be told what he said, I believe it would go like this:
We have met at a time when events from week to week, sometimes from day to day have brought vividly home to us the tension of the European situation, the difficulties that beset those who are striving to bring stability out of unrest and confidence out of fear. Fortunately also we have seen how patient and unremitting are the efforts to repair the torn fabric of European unity, how widespread is the desire and the determination to ensure peace, how deep the reluctance to incur the incalculable hazards of war.
At this time of grave international unrest and anxiety we have sought throughout to avoid, in phrase or gesture, anything which might add to existing difficulties.
Indeed, we have reason to hope that the principles which we have reaffirmed, and the views to which we have given expression, may contribute not a little to a better understanding among all nations, and to a more fruitful collaboration between them.
I do not think I would be far wrong if I said that might indicate what was said by the Prime Minister of Canada and the other prime ministers at the recent commonwealth conference. I would agree with those expressions. But what I have said, as being possibly what was said by our own Prime Minister at the commonwealth conference, is actually what was said by the late Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King at the conclusion of the imperial conference in 1937. Two years later we were faced with the holocaust of another world war.
Since that time science has developed the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb, the cobalt bomb and other thermonuclear weapons. I understand that the reactor which Canada has at Chalk River is the second largest in the world, and it is devoted to the development of nuclear fission for peace purposes. Are we therefore not in position to go further than we have gone in the past, in view of the fact that today on the floor of this House of Commons, in the parliaments of the world we hear from the political leaders of the world expressions exactly the same as were made back in 1937. We should realize that someone has to give leadership so we would deal not with generalities and platitudes but with definite policies and programs.
I do a great deal of reading, and I think the wishful thinking and the actual desire and belief of leaders in the parliaments of the western world, truthful as they are, are in line with the expressions which were used just before the second world war. Today we need something more than platitudes and generalities, and I cannot think of a country better able than Canada to take the lead.
We hear and read almost every day statements by scientists as to the probable effects of the detonation of thermonuclear weapons.
External Affairs
There seems to be some doubt as to what might happen. Only recently we were given some assurance by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) as to the genetic results, but do we have to wait until there is human evidence before action is taken?
The position is made clear by the scientists, but no matter what we are told the fact remains that they cannot take action; only parliaments can take action. It is my request that Canada give a lead. First of all Canada should recognize the statements made by the scientists and appreciate the worries of these men who are in a position to know what may happen. Political action should be taken to further investigation and to further a policy which will guarantee that we do not have to face what may happen to human beings or to nature itself because of these explosions of a thermonuclear nature.
I think attention should be paid to what has been said by Dr. O. M. Solandt, chairman of our defence research board. Dr. Solandt made an address to the Canadian Club of Toronto. This was considered to be so important that the information division of the Department of External Affairs saw fit to issue it as a release. Dr. Solandt is one of our great Canadian scientists, and I should like to place on record some of the statements he made because I think they are important and should be heard not only by members of parliament but by the people of Canada. He said:
When the history of this century comes to be written I am sure that it will then be clear that we are living in the midst of one of the greatest periods of transition in human history.
And again:
Nonetheless I think that it is particularly important for us to try to comprehend the significance of the developments in nuclear science that are taking place and try to control and direct their use. Should we fail in this task there seems to be a fair chance that the history of our era will never be written.
And again:
The scientific discoveries that underlie the thermonuclear weapons demonstrated in 1954 open possibilities for the unlimited increase of the destructive power of weapons and consequently face mankind with the ultimate possibility of selfdestruction.
The A.E.C. announcement also emphasized the fact that bombs of this kind produce huge amounts of radioactive fission products which fall out over a vast area which may cover many thousands of square miles.
The reference there is to the United States atomic energy commission. I emphasize that this is a statement by one of our leading scientists. I continue:
Man is therefore faced with a dilemma of a magnitude which he never faced before. The whole

External Affairs
history of civilization is a history of wars. Man has never solved the problem of living without fighting. In the past these wars have wiped out individuals, families, tribes, and even small nations, but the destructive power of the weapons available was never sufficient to destroy the race. We have now reached a stage in' history where we can foresee the possibility of having weapons available in the world in numbers capable of destroying our civilization and of rendering large parts or even the whole of the world uninhabitable by man. This means that our attitude toward war must be fundamentally changed if we are to ensure survival.
The last quotation I want to give is I think perhaps the most important tor this House of Commons.
We must hasten to solve our ancient problems of living together if we are to survive. We are now at last faced with the desperate alternative of one world or none.
That, sir, is an expression of opinion from one of our great Canadian scientists. It is so important that the minister of external affairs had it printed by his department of information. That scientist and others can go no further than to make statements. Action can only be taken by parliament on the recommendation of the government. It is not only the scientists who speak on this theme; it is also spoken of by men in politics. I wish to quote only two such statements made by men of political power. They recognize the danger, but I am afraid they do not follow through or use their political power to back their knowledge. This statement is, I think, important:
Nowhere on this planet today is there an Impregnable fortress, a continent or island so distant that it can ignore all the outer world. If this is not to be the age of atomic hysteria and horror, we must make it the age of international understanding and co-operative peace.
That, sir, was a statement made by the President of the United States before the American newspaper publishers' association in New York on April 22, 1954. In the same speech he also said:
Free men do not lose their patience, their courage, their faith because the obstacles are mountainous, the path uncharted. Given understanding, they invariably rise to the challenge. Never, then, has there been a more compelling and rewarding time to work for international understanding, to labor for a co-operative peace.
That is an expression of opinion by the President of the United States.
I have not hesitated in the past to criticize what I thought were the wrong policies of Mr. Dulles, secretary of state of the United States, because I thought they were wrong, often basically wrong. However, I wish to admit that I do believe he has in mind a vision of what could happen at this time if we had a thermonuclear war. I wish to quote two statements which Mr. Dulles made in a speech delivered before the Y.W.C.A. at their

centennial inaugural luncheon at New York on January 11 of this year. He said:
There will never be permanent peace so long as men and nations reserve for war their greatest effort, their most sacrificial endeavour.
He also said:
But also, peace cannot be won by truculence or by intolerance, either toward our allies or toward our citizenry. Peace has to be planned as a campaign in which many factors are weighed. It is a campaign in which it may be necessary to strive even when success may be improbable.
As I said, I have been critical of some of the policies which I see being followed throughout the world and of policies which have been enunciated by the President of the United States and Mr. Dulles, but I most sincerely agree with the principle expressed in the quotations I have read. I most sincerely believe that we have reached a stage in the development of our civilization and our scientific knowledge when we can no longer rest content with platitudes and generalities. I am convinced that the world is waiting for leadership, and I do believe quite honestly that the status and the influence of Canada is such that if this House of Commons-and that means this government and to a great extent the minister of external affairs-could come forth with a dynamic program and more forthright statements they would receive a great deal more support than is anticipated, and it would be an encouragement not only to the people of the Dominion of Canada but to the free peoples of the world.
I wish to add my remarks to those which have already been expressed on this subject. Not only should this government give more leadership; it should also be prepared not to just accept the position that there are doubts about the efiects in peacetime of the explosion of thermonuclear weapons, but the government should give leadership through its position in NATO in demanding a more comprehensive, thorough and collective study of this problem.
I do not wish to take up much more time of the house. I have tried to express my inner thoughts and to base my address to a great extent on the quotations which I have read. I have made recommendations to the minister of external affairs because I have confidence in the position Canada holds in the world and in the fact that a statement made by the hon. member that is by nature definite, emphatic, dynamic and visionary will be listened to. Let us not forget that it was reported by a Washington correspondent in the newspapers only two days ago that a member of the congress of the United States, one of the best known men in that country, said in discussing the policy concerning

Quemoy and Matsu, that if they came up with a policy that even their greatest ally, Canada, could not accept, what a policy it must be. That indicates the attention that is given to the views of this country and the policies of this government.
In concluding I wish to emphasize the thinking and the principles that are being expressed by the political leaders and scientists of the democratic world, that now is a time of decision, and unless we are careful no history will be written of this day and age because mankind will have ceased to exist on this earth. All, in the expression of their desire for peace, say we must not take a position of antagonism, truculence or suspicion; we must not be held back by obstacles, setbacks and disillusionments, because the future of the world depends upon carrying on our search for peace; because the maintenance of mankind and of civilization depends upon our living together. Otherwise we are going to die together. Yes, we have had and still have suspicions. We have great worries. Without doubt we have had a great many disillusionments and a great many setbacks. But, as even Mr. Dulles said, we have to carry on for a brotherhood of peace.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to have been a public servant in opposition for some 22 years now. I can assure you that one sometimes reaches a point of frustration. You believe you are right; you know you are right, but you do not seem to be able to make any progress. I have discovered on occasions like that that I can go back to some of the best writers in the world and get the inspiration and the courage to carry on. One of the writers I sometimes go back to- and I commend him to the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has not read the book to which I am going to refer-is Lloyd C. Douglas and his famous book entitled "Green Light". It is strictly a work of fiction. In that book there is a statement by one of the leading characters, Dean Harcourt, who said in effect: "In my lifetime I, too, have faced obstacles, setbacks, dissillusionments and frustration, but I know that my goal is right; I know that destiny is on my side; I know that eventually I am going to get the green light, and then I am going to go on through."
In all this struggle for peace, Mr. Speaker, in all the trials and tribulations of today, there have been frustrations, I know, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs; there have been setbacks and disillusionment. Very often we are suspicious. May I say, sir, and
External Affairs
I conclude as I started, in this age of thermonuclear discoveries and accomplishments I feel that if the minister, as our spokesman on foreign affairs, will give greater leadership, be more emphatic, more progressive, and will not be set back by disillusionments and frustrations, Canada will give a great lead to the world and eventually we will get the green light that opens the road to a lasting peace.


Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: I have listened with intense interest to the remarks of the hon. member who has just taken his seat. If he could only go to Russia and get them to believe just what he has said; if he could only go to China and get them to believe what he said, then probably there would be some sense in what he said because we are all ready to believe it and the people of the free world are ready to believe it, if only the people of the communist world would ease their aggression. But the people of the communist world are determined to continue their aggression until there exists no anti-communist world. I hope the hon. member takes time to think that through before he rises in his place and gives us any more alarming speeches. Our problem is to know what is the calm, sane, sensible thing to do to preserve our freedom in these troubled times.
It is my purpose to give some attention to the remarks made by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar on March 24. The hon. member made a statement which could be easily interpreted as meaning that the Chinese people drove Chiang Kai-shek from China. That statement, if I have interpreted it correctly, is just as false as a falsehood can be, because Chiang Kai-shek was not driven from China by the Chinese people but by the people of the United States. There is no time remaining for me to establish the position that I have to establish in order to make good that statement, but I shall be right here when this debate resumes.
Let me point out meanwhile that in February, 1945, President Roosevelt, the president of the United States, threw Chiang Kai-shek to the dogs by simply agreeing to allow Russia to have Manchuria, which is the source of most of the industrial strength of China, and north China, which is the source of the rest of the industrial strength of China. To that statement there is positively no answer.
I propose to quote in the few moments that remain to me one statement which comes from an important United States newspaper, based on what had been divulged in the Yalta papers. This paper says in so many words-


Mr. Caslleden:: What is the paper?

Business of the House


John Horne Blackmore: I shall give it to you in a minute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Six o'clock.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall give it to the hon. member when we resume the debate, along with a great deal of other information, for apparently he has not done enough homework to be familiar with it.
I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr. Speaker.
On motion of Mr. Blackmore the debate was adjourned.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, when we resume, we shall take the legislation in the following order: item No. 3, Bill No. 187,
respecting the New Westminster harbour commissioners; item No. 12, Bill No. 259, to amend the Railway Act; item No. 13, Bill No. 260, to amend the Radio Act; item No. 15, Bill No. 262, respecting the Toronto harbour commissioners, the Toronto Terminals Railway Company, and so forth; item No. 17, Bill No. 263, to implement the convention on damage caused by foreign aircraft to third parties on the surface, and item No. 7, a resolution with respect to amendments to the Blind Persons Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the house adjourns, may I wish the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all hon. members a restful recess and a very happy Easter.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned until Monday, April 18, 1955, at 2.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 18, 1955