1956-02-06

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition:
That the address of the Right Honourable Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, delivered before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada in the chamber of the House of Commons on February 6, 1956, together with introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons debates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 51, to amend the Small Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INCOME TAX ACT


Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. 52, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of this bill is to reduce the time within which the department can reopen an assessment from six years to three years, except in the case of fraud or wilful misrepresentation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the
following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of the corporation to be known as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, inter alia, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario and of leasing, with an option to purchase, the said natural gas pipe line to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of the said pipe line in connection with such purchase option;
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of these purposes, that it may borrow money, the aggregate of the amounts borrowed by the corporation and outstanding at any time and the aggregate of the amounts loaned by the Minister of Finance and outstanding at any time not to exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars;
To provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees incidental to the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all communications exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States from January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1955, relating to the United States wheat disposal program.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, at an earlier sitting I stated that it was not in the public interest to produce the correspondence referred to in this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all resolutions supporting the demand for cash advances on farm-stored wheat which have been received from western farm organizations and other public bodies, by the Prime Minister and any of the ministers of the government, or officials of the government, since the 15th day of August, 1955.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all communications received by any federal cabinet minister, dated at any time since December 1, 1955, with reference to lay-offs at Bristol Aircraft Limited, at Winnipeg, and for a copy of all replies thereto.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and/or any other communications exchanged between the government or any department thereof, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, from January 1, 1S55, to date.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and/or any other communications exchanged between the government, or any department thereof, and the government of Ontario, or any department thereof, from January 1, 1955, to date, with respect to the proposed construction of a gas pipe line across northern Ontario.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would request that this motion be dropped, in view of the motion that was passed the other day in the name of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and which asked for the same information.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



FLOOD DAMAGE, SASKATCHEWAN

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. McCullough (Moose
Mountain):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any department thereof and the premier of Saskatchewan or any [DOT] department of the Saskatchewan government, from June 1, 1955 to date, in respect to flood damage in Saskatchewan during 1955.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Before the order is complied with, Mr. Speaker, we will notify the government of Saskatchewan that the house desires the production of these documents.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried subject to the observations made by the Prime Minister.
now before the Exchequer Court of Canada. The matter is sub judice. The second case involves the anthracite property. There are eight owners and the case of one of the owners is before the Exchequer Court of Canada. It is considered to be a test case. Consequently the whole subject matter is before the courts. I submit that according to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 295, the documents should not be produced. Moreover, it is not in the public interest to produce them.


Mr. Knowles:: Anyway, you do not want to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances shall this motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.



EXPORT PERMITS FOR MUNITIONS TO EGYPT

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all export permits covering noncompetitive shipments of aircraft, aircraft parts or other munitions to Egypt, which have been issued since the 15th of June, 1955.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution is covered by a statement which appears at page 832 of Hansard, under the heading "Statement as to Secrecy of Export Permits".


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call for the yeas and nays on this matter, because we do not accept the explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.



BANFF NATIONAL PARK-TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Johnston (Bow River):
For a copy of all correspondence and other [DOT]documents exchanged between the Department of .Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Public Works and any person or persons, during the past three years, regarding the expropriation of property in the Banff national park for the construction of the trans-Canada highway.
['No, there has been no request sent to Canada for a force of that character, and naturally no such consideration has been given in view of the fact that no request has been made.']
Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, this motion relates to documents and correspondence with regard to two properties in the Banff national park. The first one is the Wheatley property. Expropriation proceedings in that case are 
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


['Mr. Speaker, this motion relates to documents and correspondence with regard to two properties in the Banff national park. The first one is the Wheatley property. Expropriation proceedings in that case are \nAnd more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.']
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, this is probably another occasion where you will be asked to call for the yeas and nays. This motion is repeating the request which was made orally on Thursday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), as reported on page 787 of Hansard. At that time I explained why we felt the request could not be complied with. It now comes forward in the form of a motion for an order for return which we cannot accept.


Mr. Drew:: Mr. Speaker, just so that we will understand the situation, are we to take it that there is a ministerial order but that it is the policy of the government not to produce it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was a ministerial decision; I do not know whether it should be called an order.


George Alexander Drew: That is what it was called.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was called an order, but I would not want the hon. gentleman to get the impression from my answer that it was a formal order recorded in the council minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that there is agreement as to the dropping of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.

Motions for Papers



[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson	Cloutier
Applewhaite	Crestohl
Ashbourne	Dechene
Balcom	Decore
Batten	Denis
Benidickson	Deschatelets
Bennett	Deslieres
Bertrand	Dumas
Blanchette	Dupuis
Bonnier	Enfield
Bourget	Eyre
Breton	Fairey
Brisson	Follwell
Brown (Brantford)	Forgie
Brown (Essex West)	Fraser (St. John's East)
Bruneau	Gardiner
Buchanan	Garson
Byrne	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Cameron (High Park)	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Campney	Gingras
Cannon	Gingues
Cardiff	Goode
Caron	Gour (Russell)
Carrick	Gourd (Chapleau)
Carter	Gregg
Cavers	Habel

On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Prince Albert asked me this question:
What is the present position in regard to the embargo which the Prime Minister undertook to impose pending the foreign affairs debate on shipments of aircraft and armaments in general to the Middle East? Has the embargo which was imposed been lifted or is it still in effect? What is the position with regard thereto?
My answer was that the embargo had not been lifted and that the matter was then under consideration. It has been considered, and the embargo is now to be lifted at once. The government intends to continue the policy which has been in force of considering each application for military equipment on its merits and ensuring that if permission is granted it shall, in the future as in the past, be for military equipment of a type and quantity which could not provoke an arms race or provide an incentive to

Inquiries of the Ministry
aggression. If the political situation in the and, if no progress is being made, does the area should change in a way which would federal government anticipate taking any make inadvisable any shipments of any kind, measure to effect a settlement? necessary action to refuse applications or	_	_ _
postpone shipments will be taken.	Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):
This is a dispute that is entirely under Israeli-arab borders-participation by	provincial jurisdiction. The answer to the
Canada in supervisory force	second part of the question is no.
On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given consideration to any request that Canada supply 500 personnel to an international border supervisory security force for Palestine? If so, has any consideration been given to the transfer of some of the Canadian troops now in West Germany to that international police force to preserve and assure peace in the Middle East?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there has been no request sent to Canada for a force of that character, and naturally no such consideration has been given in view of the fact that no request has been made.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: I
should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what is delaying the tabling of the annual report under the Export and Import Permits Act, which is required to be tabled in the house as soon as practicable after December 31. I am speaking of the report on the operations for the calendar year 1955.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understood we had some three months to comply with that requirement. I presume the report is taking the ordinary course. I shall make inquiries and see whether it can be speeded up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister aware that last year the report for the calendar year 1954 was tabled in the house at an earlier date than this?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  C. E. Johnsion@Bow River: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister tell the house what progress is being made toward a settlement of the General Motors strike at Oshawa



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. The question is prompted by an advertisement in the Ottawa Journal of February 3-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -which reads:
Canadair, guided missiles department, has an immediate opening for an electronics engineer.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The question is, what guided missiles are being made at Canadair and for whom are they being manufactured?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any work on guided missiles in Canadair is undoubtedly for the Canadian government. I do not know that I wish to name the weapon at the moment, although I will make inquiries and see whether I can do so on another occasion.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melforl):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Why was the discussion on the book "The Age of Mackenzie King" cancelled by the C.B.C.?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the
C.B.C. about this matter and I am informed that it was not a case of cancelling a program. The C.B.C. reports that, while some consideration was given to the book as a possible subject for a national television network discussion, on consideration it was not thought to be a good basis for such a discussion.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



MINTO ARMOURIES, WINNIPEG-INQUIRY AS TO RECONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. C. Trainor (Winnipeg South):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to reconstruct in the near future the Minto armouries in the city of Winnipeg, which were recently damaged by fire?


Hon. R. O. Campnsy (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is now being reviewed. As of now the intention would be to reconstruct the armouries. They are not entirely destroyed. But until we have a final review of the cost involved, the state of the building, and other relevant factors, I cannot give a final answer.



REFERENCE TO ACCIDENT AT BRAMPTON, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Palleli (Peel):: I should like to
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the report correct in the newspapers to the effect that the pilots who were killed at Brampton were practising forced landings?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of the circumstances of that unfortunate accident. It is being looked into, but I have no report as yet. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot at the moment answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: They were using Chipmunks, too.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Watson MacNaught (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked me whether the recommendations of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission for the 1956 sockeye salmon fishing regulations had been received. I replied that the recommendations had not been received but that when they were received a report would be made to the house.
The recommendations of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission have now been received in the department and are being studied. The recommendations ask that, for conservation reasons during the 1956 season, the area generally referred to as Juan de


Fuca straits be closed to salmon net fishing from June 28 to August 5 inclusive and that such closure be made effective under authority of the Fisheries Act in so far as Canadian nationals are concerned. The commission has recommended similar action to the government of the United States regarding United States nationals on the American side of Juan de Fuca straits, the regulations to be made effective under the legislation of the state of Washington.
The commission also proposes to prohibit salmon net fishing in outside waters, that is west of a line from Bonilla point to Tatoosh island for both Canadian and American fishermen. This latter regulation is made by the commission itself under the provisions of the international sockeye salmon convention.
The commission's recommendations regarding closure of the Juan de Fuca straits area are being studied by officials of the department and an announcement will be made in due course. Salmon net fishing in the area in question does not normally commence until the latter part of June.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of which I have been unable to send him notice. Has the minister received communications from shippers in western Nova Scotia with respect to the termination of freight service between Yarmouth and Boston? If so, will the minister be prepared to make a recommendation for the continuation of this service for the time being?
Hon.	George	C.	Marler	(Minister	of
Transport): Some representations have been received and are under consideration, but no final decision has been taken.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.	George	C.	Marler	(Minister	of
Transport): While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question asked me last Friday by my friend the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser).
I am informed that the Canadian Bridge Company Limited, who have the contract for erecting the Warsaw road bridge over the Trent canal at Peterborough, have been delayed by a shortage of steel. However, the

steel members have been secured, fabrication is nearing completion, and it is expected that the bridge will be completed about April 20.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the list of strategic materials the export of which is banned to countries behind the iron curtain is now under consideration? Are any changes in contemplation or have any been discussed with Great Britain or the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The list of strategic materials is revised from time to time by a committee of the NATO organization. I think the last revision took place seven or eight months ago. I have not heard of any further revision since then.



PRIVILEGE


George Alexander Drew: Before the orders of the day are called I rise on a question of privilege. In the edition of Friday, February 3, of the Winnipeg Free Press, on the editorial page, there is an article headed "One Solution Overlooked". From it I shall read a short statement that indicates that serious misinformation has been given to the public without, I am sure, the intention to do so. It reads as follows:
It is a curious fact that so far no party has advocated payment by the wheat board on the farms-that is, neither lending nor advancing money but making a partial payment on the farm.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Then it goes on later to state this:
The Conservative party favours loans as of right through the wheat board.
And again this statement is made:
The loans or advances proposed alike by the Liberal, Conservative and C.C.F. parties would be repayable by farmers in cash.
Mr. Speaker, that statement going out to a large number of readers of this paper gives an impression that is difficult to reconcile with what has been stated clearly and emphatically in this house. I would refer-
Shipment of Arms Abroad


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to point out that in my humble view he cannot, on a question of privilege, debate in this house what appears in the press as their interpretation of what has happened in this house. The debate in this house is one which must take place between members. If the press make their own interpretation of what has been said or of what has taken place in this house and we then proceed further to debate the matter with them, I think we are departing from the rules of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Your Honour, I was about to follow a practice that has been followed here on numerous occasions. I was about to read from Hansard in order to show what I had said with regard to this matter, which has been misrepresented to the public. I would ask Your Honour whether I am permitted to quote from Hansard remarks I made in the opening speech I made in the debate on the speech from the throne.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition will understand the position I am taking. If in the editorial there had been a direct quotation relating to the Leader of the Opposition it would be a different proposition. It would have been a misconstruction of his words uttered in this house. But from what he has read, I understand that the editorial is perhaps misunderstanding what has been said. Perhaps they are all wrong, but that is a matter of debate. The Leader of the Opposition should seek another opportunity to debate the matter. He should not rise on a question of privilege in order to argue it out now. Now that he has referred to the matter again, perhaps the newspaper will understand the matter better next time. My point is that I do not think a question of privilege should be raised for the purpose which the Leader of the Opposition has in mind at the moment.


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to debate the ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is not debatable. I shall avail myself later this week of an opportunity of placing the record properly before the house.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



SHIPMENT OF ARMS ABROAD

Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity this session, on going into supply, for

Shipment of Arms Abroad Her Majesty's loyal opposition to raise a matter of importance and draw to the attention of the house a subject which, in the opinion of the opposition, deserves serious consideration.
For the last several weeks we have been considering some matters pertaining to the procedure followed by the government in dealing with the shipment abroad of military equipment, and a number of questions have been asked from time to time in order to obtain information. Some confusion has arisen with regard to the method and procedure followed in the shipment of military equipment from this country, not only in the minds of the members of this house but perhaps across the country, and there may even be some confusion in the minds of some members of the cabinet.
It would be interesting to clear up some of the terms that have been used from time to time in reference to the shipment of arms, ammunition and military equipment, such as orders in council, ministerial orders, ministerial decisions, export permits, and terms of that nature. I intend to move a motion to the effect that this matter be turned over to a committee of the house. At this stage I shall read but will not move the motion which will form the basis for the debate, and on which I hope to base my argument. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
The value of suggesting reference to the external affairs committee is that expedition will result from that method of procedure. That committee is well able, from its experience, to deal with a matter of this sort.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of government policy and administrative procedures might be used as an excuse for a person's lack of knowledge of what is going on, because government policy is sometimes obscure, sometimes in a state of flux, and sometimes it remains unknown unless intensive investigation is carried on, or some accident occurs.
During the course of the last several weeks we have been endeavouring to obtain information with regard to this matter I have raised. We have uncovered confusion. To every member of this house examples will occur of answers which lead to various interpretations, answers which are only partial replies to the questions asked, and answers which appear not to be answers at all. I propose using as an example three questions
[Mr. Churehill.l
that I asked in the house dealing with three matters concerning which I thought we should have information. My first question is found at page 525 of Hansard. It was addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and referred to mutilated gun barrels and breech blocks. I wanted to know whether those mutilated gun barrels and breech blocks were, if or when they were exported as scrap, beyond repair. Here is the minister's answer:
The instructions to the disposal corporation are that before guns are scrapped, and before they leave the possession of the corporation, the breech blocks are to be demolished. In other words, they are mutilated beyond repair.
That was a reply to half my question. I was much more interested in gun barrels, and to that part of the question no reply has been forthcoming. A mutilated gun barrel, in army parlance, is one which is not beyond repair. When sent to an armourer it can be put back in shape rather quickly. Is there any use in my asking now of the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether or not during the year 1955, or the preceding year, mutilated gun barrels have been exported from Canada as scrap metal? In all probability I would get a reply to the effect that no scrap metal had been shipped from Canada last week, and I would be no further ahead.
My second question concerned the extent of our traffic in arms, ammunition and military supplies. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at page 521 of Hansard, whether or not we had sent any military equipment to any South American country in the last two years. This is the reply of the minister as recorded at page 557 of Hansard:
The answer is, no permits were issued for guns, ammunition, or military weapons of any kind, or for military aircraft or military vehicles to South America.
Does that mean that no military equipment was shipped to South America? Can military equipment be shipped without permits? I am at a loss to know what the answer means. I would place opposite that answer in Hansard the information which I obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics, which shows that during the year 1954, and for the ten months of 1955, military equipment to the amount of $63,980 was shipped to Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela. I took extreme care, and I checked the atlas. I found that after all these years these countries are still in South America. The headings in the dominion bureau of statistics return are: "Guns, rifles and other firearms; cartridges, gun and rifle."

My third question, addressed to the same minister, had reference to the shipment of military equipment to the 34 sensitive areas he had mentioned earlier, with the exception of Israel and Egypt. His reply indicated that $1 million worth of military equipment had gone during the last two years to sensitive areas outside the British commonwealth but he felt unable to give the names of the areas to which that equipment had been sent, although I asked for the names of those areas. It occurs to me that it is possible that a committee sitting in camera would be given that information so the picture would be entirely clear. It is because of answers like that, and because of the even more confusing answers we have heard in response to other questions, that I am suggesting this whole matter be referred to a committee which could seriously attempt to unravel the skein of confusion which prevails with regard to the entire question of exports of arms, ammunition and military equipment.
It seems to me that in matters of this sort the government follows a course of concealment, and when the truth appears to have been discovered it is followed by a denial such as the one which said in effect that no planes had been sent to Egypt and no arms to South America. This is followed by certain grudging admissions when pressed, and if the matter is pursued further it culminates in certain guilty disclosures. At that stage panic sets in and a smoke screen is thrown up to confuse the issue completely, and the fall-out extends from coast to coast. Of course, at that stage it is also customary to blame the opposition for not having raised the question on some other earlier occasion when the matter might have been considered and the information given by the government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what are we doing about the shipment of arms, ammunition and military equipment overseas? Unless we can bring this matter before a committee and make a diligent search into it we will not know exactly what is being done. We have been told that there is no prohibition concerning shipments to our allies in NATO or to the commonwealth countries, but that there is a prohibition in relation to the Sino-Russian bloc. The question then arises concerning shipments to other countries outside of those areas, and it is with regard to those other countries outside of NATO and the British commonwealth that I was in complete ignorance of the fact that we were engaging in commercial transactions involving arms and general military equipment.
We have had pointed out to us in this rather purple fringe area of activity that
Shipment of Arms Abroad careful steps are taken to prevent any weapons going overseas that should not go, and things of that nature. Even today we were assured by the Prime Minister that in lifting the embargo the government was following the same policy as in the past. If I interpreted his words correctly they were to the effect that military equipment was not being shipped out of Canada to these countries of a nature that would encourage an arms race or be an incentive to aggression.
So we are informed that an elaborate control system has been set up; that such matters have to go before the cabinet and go through a procedure before three cabinet ministers; that various checks are involved that would secure Canada's position. The phrases used such as "consideration at cabinet level", "special care with regard to sensitive areas", "shipments only to defence departments", "assurances against re-export", "estimates of legitimate defence requirements of the receiving countries", "very special care that there is no temptation to commit aggression by the receiving country", indicate a very cautious approach indeed, as if the government realized that it was dealing with something of considerable significance to the people of Canada, as indeed it is.
But does the system work? It is only through an examination by a committee that we can find out whether or not that system does work. There is an escape clause-at least it is a confusing clause or phrase-in some of the information we have been given. The words used were, "shipments of any significance". We are told that such shipments have to go through the procedure that has been outlined. However, the words "any significance" have not been defined. What do they mean? Do they refer to the type of material that has been shipped or to the quantity or the value? We have not been told.
Another interesting question is, who makes the decision as to whether a shipment of military equipment is or is not significant? We are not informed with regard to that aspect of the question either. All arrows point to the minister in charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence also bear some responsibility with regard to this matter.
At this point, in order that we may be reassured the cloak of righteousness is thrown over the shoulders of the cabinet. If only we knew the number of orders that had been received for jet planes and the alacrity with which the cabinet turned down those orders.
886	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Anns Abroad If only we knew the total value of equipment that has been ordered and refused. The government has been tempted and has resisted temptation.
Well, that may be very reassuring to some people but I am not sure whether it will be reassuring to the hon. members of this house. Then we are told that after all no great quantities have been shipped, and also that the weapons that have been shipped are not' modern and dangerous.
Only a committee could find out the facts with regard to the procedure in the shipping of military equipment overseas to those countries outside NATO and the British commonwealth. How can we obtain that information in the house? That subject deserves intensive study.
There is a great danger in thinking that simply because great weapons of massive destruction have been developed over the last several years, weapons of so-called conventional design are not dangerous. It is wrong to think that simply because we are not shipping abroad atom and hydrogen bombs, jet planes, rockets and guided missiles and tanks, that we are shipping weapons that are not dangerous. Thinking in those terms you can reach the point where you think in effect that to kill men by obsolete and conventional weapons is not as objectionable as it is to kill them by modern means of mass destruction. We have it on the word of a person who heretofore has been considered competent to express opinions along those lines, and I would like t'o read the following words to the house:
We hope that atomic weapons will never be used. We also hope that machine guns and howitzers will not be used. The danger is that the uncritical acceptance throughout the world of the reprehensible quality of atomic weapons as such, rather than of violence itself, may lead to an assumption that the use of "conventional" weapons to kill men in order to achieve political objectives is somehow not so objectionable. A man is equally dead if killed by a bullet, an arrow or an atomic blast. It is the use of force that is to be condemned, not the physical source of that force.
Those words come from a book entitled 'Democracy in World Politics" of which I think the author is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Yet here le would have us believe that conventional weapons such as those we are disposing of are lot modern and dangerous.
I would hope that the committee investigat-ng this subject would consider our method if procedure, and in doing so find out what ;ypes of material were shipped overseas and whether or not we were sending modern and iangerous weapons. The purpose of weapons such as aeroplanes, tanks, guns, machine guns and rifles is to deliver upon the enemy an


explosive charge or a bullet which will destroy or kill. A jet aeroplane without ammunition is not as useful as a helicopter and a tank without ammunition is not as useful to an army as a bulldozer. It is the ammunition which is the important factor along with the weapon.
In the first world war artillery and mortar fire killed thousands of men and machine gun fire killed tens of thousands. Machine guns dominated the battlefield until their power was broken after four years of static warfare by the invention and use of the tank. In the second world war more powerful weapons of destruction were invented and used, but many thousands of men fell before the fire of machine guns and rifles. The V-l and V-2 were used toward the latter part of the war, but their destruction of civilian property and installations was not particularly important from the standpoint of the armies in the field.
Reporting in the latest issue of XJ.S. News and World Report, General Gruenther indicates that even if nuclear weapons are used there will still be need for armies to continue the use of conventional weapons. So how can you say they are not modern and dangerous? Therefore I submit that shipments of ammunition from this country to countries outside of NATO or other than countries which are our allies should be carefully examined. In what way are the permits issued? What controls are exercised to see that this ammunition does not get into the wrong channels?
An examination of the bureau of statistics report shows that in the last eight years Canada has shipped $800,000 worth of ammunition to Central America, the islands of the Caribbean and portions of South America. That would buy millions of rounds for rifles and machine guns. Why has Canada been shipping this type of material to areas which have nothing to do with us from the standpoint of our NATO alliance? What controls are exercised? Why are these shipments made? Is Canada entering into a traffic that represents an arms race and provides an incentive to aggression?
I notice that in 1949 over $20,000 worth of ammunition was shipped to the Dominican Republic. Why should the Dominican Republic want that amount of ammunition? I discovered that at that time that country feared an invasion from some of its neighbours and conferred upon its president full power to declare war. Consequently they needed ammunition. The adjoining neighbours whom they feared were Costa Rica, Panama and Cuba. Following its policy of balancing sides, of providing material to both sides so that

peace would be preserved, we find that Canada shipped about $40,000 of ammunition to those three areas.
Then I notice that in 1951 Cuba received over $100,000 worth of ammunition, and another $50,000 worth in 1952. What purpose was served by these shipments? Who issued the export permits? Were the needs and requirements of this country examined? We are told that extreme care is taken to determine the defensive requirements of a country, to see that the balance is not upset one way or another. What was going wrong in Cuba in 1951? The record shows that in the spring' of 1952 the government of Cuba was overthrown. An officer obtained control of the army, and with all that ammunition handy he was able to unseat the government. At the same time there apparently was no threat from the neighbouring countries, so Canada did not supply a great deal, except the customary $13,000 worth of ammunition to Costa Rica.
Then as my third example let us see what was going on in 1954 in Central America that interested Canada. The record shows that in 1954 Guatemala got over $16,000 worth of ammunition from Canada. In the preceding year they got only $172 worth. That caught my attention and I wondered what in the world had happened in Guatemala. I looked into it and found that things were in a rather disturbed state in that country at that time. In 1953 important positions in the government had come under the control of the communists and in January, February and March of 1954 shipments of arms reached that country from Canada. But the Russians did it on a proper scale. When they play they play for high stakes, and a whole shipload totalling 2,000 tons of military supplies which were loaded at Stettin in Poland, ostensibly headed for Africa, reached Guatemala. Of course then the neighbouring states had to interest themselves in the problem, there was intervention in Guatemala, the government was overthrown and the situation was restored.
In 1954 Canada supplied $25,000 worth of ammunition to Costa Rica, which is not far away, $30,000 odd worth to Cuba and $15,000 worth to Panama. So in the year 1954 we find from the operation of the export permit system of this government that the Canadian government supplied ammunition to a communist controlled government in Guatemala. I think the committee might very well investigate the method by which our ammunition is disposed of.
I would like to ask this question. What is the final disposition of this ammunition? Has it been re-exported? Has it perhaps ended
Shipment of Arms Abroad up in communist hands in Malaya or Indochina? Has it perhaps ended up in the hands of some of the Mau Mau tribesmen of Kenya, or is it now in the hands of Algerian tribesmen? Once ammunition is exported to a world market without any effective control over its re-export, the most disastrous things may happen. It surely is shameful to think-and I hope a committee of inquiry shows otherwise-that perhaps Canadian-manufactured ammunition has fallen into the hands of people who with that ammunition will kill British and Australian troops in Malaya or French legionnaires in Algeria.
Those are some of the reasons I can advance for the need of a committee to examine our method in dealing with these modern and dangerous weapons. Ammunition does not become obsolete. The Hotchkiss, the Lewis, the Vickers, perhaps the Bren, are now considered obsolete and have been superseded by the Browning machine gun, but those same guns in the hands of men who are bent on fighting would be just as effective as they were 20 or 30 years ago, when they were considered modern and dangerous.
Canada has got itself into a very peculiar position with regard to trafficking in arms. The only way we can find out whether or not we are permitting the export of destructive weapons is by an investigation. An investigation would show whether our tinkering with military supplies to countries that are not our allies and are not engaged in assisting us against the one major opponent is not likely to do more to foment trouble and strife rather than to maintain peace.
What in the world has happened to the millions of rounds of ammunition sent down to Central America, the Caribbean and South America? Who knows now where that has gone? Perhaps it has made its way over to the sensitive area in the Middle East or some other sensitive area. Then what is going to be the outcome of this reckless disregard, as it appears to me, in handling that type of equipment? In the final analysis, trouble will break out somewhere and Canadian troops will be required to take some action. That is what may happen, and by all means we should resist and oppose anything like that happening.
We can only check the danger by a thorough investigation here in the House of Commons. We cannot do it by questions and answers on the orders of the day. That has been proven over the past three weeks. We can do it only by a thorough investigation. Such an investigation, laying before the committee and finally before the house the facts of the matter, will give us an indication as

Shipment of Arms Abroad,
to whether or not there has been any properly controlled policy or method of procedure on the part of the government. At the moment I think that the matter is completely out of control, and I think dollars have been the consideration.
I do not know how the moral aspect of it could be investigated, but we have had a new moral principle brought forward for our attention, to the effect that if a number of larger nations ship arms to an area where there is tension, it is not morally wrong for Canada to do so as well. That would be a nice question for our moral philosophers to deal with. Right or wrong is not to be determined by the morals involved but by numbers. It is an exercise in numerology. If we are not going to indulge in an arms race or permit other countries to engage in an arms race, as the Prime Minister pointed out today, how do we prevent it? How do we balance arms and ammunition against arms and ammunition? Do five hundred guns equal 500 guns? How many anti-aircraft guns equal one airplane? That is an impossible basis. There are so many other factors that have to be considered; the supply of ammunition, in which Canada is very active, the training of troops, leadership and morale.
In playing this game we are like children in a kindergarten piling up building blocks to see how high we can get them before they topple over. In supplying arms to both sides, Canada has got itself into a very awkward position, and only a thorough investigation by a committee of this house would determine whether or not the method of procedure of the government is sound and proper.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to tell the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and those who will follow him in the discussion of the amendment he announced earlier that there appears to me, judging by the tenor of his arguments and the words used in his speech today, a very close relationship to the debate that took place not very long ago on a motion of want of confidence, moved when the debate on external affairs was arranged. He does not come to the same conclusion by his amendment, but perhaps we might have a debate which is not so repetitious of the one that took place the other day if arguments were directed more closely to the purport of the amendment he intends to move, and about which he spoke earlier.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to bring my remarks to a conclusion in a very few minutes. Before the dinner hour I was dealing with the subject of the shipment from Canada of arms, ammunition and military equipment generally. I questioned the effectiveness of the present system of export permits in controlling those shipments. I gave just a few examples. The amounts of money involved are small in relation to the cost of airplanes and tanks. I was dealing with the cost of ammunition. Ammunition is cheap, but it is ammunition that kills.
To those who are impressed by size, let me say that a battalion of infantry attempting to cross 400 or 500 yards of open ground against a battery of 25-pounder or 105 millimetre guns-and those are terribly destructive weapons of war of great size-would have a greater chance of surviving and reaching its objective than if crossing the open ground against four machine guns properly sighted for cross-fire and firing small ammunition. Under our present system of export permits we are placing millions of rounds of small arms ammunition in the hands of men here and there throughout the world in order that they may kill each other.
I have urged that for the purpose of securing the necessary information in order that the house may make a decision, the whole matter should be referred to a committee. This is a method to which I am sure there is no objection, and the government may wish to adopt the suggestion in order that full information may be made available to the public. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "That" and substituting therefor the following:
"in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I am going to support the amendment, because I feel that after the discussions that have taken place in the house over the last few weeks there is considerable uneasiness in various parts of the country with respect to Canada's exports of munitions of war.
I am not suggesting that at the present time Canada is fomenting trouble anywhere in the world. That, I think, is not the intention either of the mover of the amendment or his

party. But I think it is wise that the house and the country should understand the procedures involved in the issue of permits for the export of munitions. We know very well that permits are not required for the export of war material to our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nor, I take it, is it the intention of the mover that we shall divulge to what extent we are supporting our sister nations of the commonwealth in the securing of the necessary arms and so on in order to defend themselves and our way of life if they or that way of life should be attacked.
But over the last few weeks we have had considerable discussion in the house, and many questions have been asked, regarding the export of airplanes, ammunition and guns by permit through private organizations. I have a very vivid recollection over the years of discussions in the house and throughout the country regarding the activities of these private companies. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think they are no more scrupulous in their activities today than they were in days gone by when they were so frequently called, as they were the other evening by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), merchants of death.
I have noticed some of their activities in our own country over the last year or two. I was very annoyed, for example, by a photograph that appeared as an advertisement by Canadair in Time magazine, other magazines and some of the newspapers of this country. It so happens that I am a member of the church which was photographed and used in the advertisement. It is one of the largest churches of my denomination in the city of Ottawa. I refer to St. Matthew's church. The photograph in the advertisement showed a few people scattered throughout the church, and the implication was that we were not prepared either spiritually or through armaments to defend our way of life against communism. In fact that was the tenor of the advertising around the picture of this particular church and its interior.
The story of the photograph is rather interesting. Canadair secured the services of a well-known photographer. The church authorities did not know why the photograph was going to be taken. Canadair got about 20 elderly people from one of the homes in the city, took them to the church scattered them throughout the church so as to make it appear that the church was habitually empty when people were called to worship there. Yet I can testify-


Mr. Rowe:: On a week day?
Shipment of Arms Abroad


Major James William Coldwell: On a week day-that St. Matthew's church probably is one of the best attended churches in the city. If you go there on Sunday morning, as I hope some of you may do on occasion, you will find that the pews are full. Yet the advertising around the photograph conveyed the impression that this was one of the empty churches of today and referred to the danger of communism because our people were not paying sufficient attention to their spiritual obligations.


Walter Edward Harris: When did this occur?


Major James William Coldwell: Last spring; and the advertising appeared in the autumn of last year. The church is St. Matthew's church in this city.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was probably charged up to the public, too.


Major James William Coldwell: I may say I know very well what happened, because I am a member of that congregation. Here you have Canadair urging the production of war machines, planes and so on, advertising through the medium of the newspapers, Time and other magazines, and publishing what is in effect a false impression of what is actually the case so far as our churches are concerned. Nothing is sacred for some of these munition makers.
There we find an indication of precisely the kind of thing they will do. Consequently I think that in these times, when these people are finding it extremely profitable indeed to make munitions of war both for our own government and to send overseas, we should understand exactly how these munitions of war are allowed to be sent out of Canada. Indeed, I would go further and say that the amendment contains an extremely valuable suggestion. I say that for this reason. How many members of this House of Commons know precisely what is done with the large appropriations of money that we make for the provision of munitions of war for this country?
I have often felt that there is one aspect of our expenditures about which members of parliament know nothing. I refer to the expenditures that are made by the Department of National Defence for munitions of war. I am not for one moment indicating that in times like these we should not look to our defence. I am not for one moment saying that in times like these we are not obliged to see to it that we have the best possible equipment with which to defend ourselves and with which, if necessary, to assist our allies in the same cause in our joint defence. But I am saying that we should know precisely what is being done. I am saying that we should know what these

Shipment of Arms Abroad corporations-which are private corporations, and which get permits in order to export munitions of war-are doing, where they are sending their munitions, how they obtain these permits and what happens to be the manner of granting them.
I am therefore going to support this suggestion. It does not encompass very much. For example, it cannot be said that this amendment in any way embraces the kind of problem that we were discussing in connection with external affairs a week ago. It is much narrower than that. But it would give members of parliament, through the external affairs committee, an opportunity of making an inquiry into how these orders are being placed, and how these permits are being issued; and perchance we might widen that inquiry and find out how these munitions of war are being paid for. We should then be in better circumstances to understand some of the factors that enter into this great private industry.
As I say, we have built up in this country some powerful industries. I mentioned Canadair. As a matter of fact, Canadair is a creature of our own parliament. We laid the foundations of it. There are in our own country other organizations of the same sort to which, during the war, we provided valuable plants and facilities or to which, when the war was over, the plants and facilities that we had built up .in order to win a great war were handed with little return to Canada, and today they are unfortunately the basis of an extremely profitable industry.
I am not going to elaborate, because the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre went into the matter quite fully from his point of view and gave some reasons why this amendment has been moved. All I want to do tonight is just say to the house that here we have a proposal that will enable members of parliament to inquire into the export of munitions from this country; will give members of parliament an opportunity to understand how permits are issued; will give us a more comprehensive view of where some of these munitions have gone in the past; and will enable that committee to recommend to this parliament-not to the government-ways and means of exercising a greater measure of control.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stated this afternoon, none of us knows to what extent the ammunition that was sent, for example, to South America has found its way to some other quarters. We do not know that. We do not know just where some of the munitions go after they leave this country. We should have a thorough understanding of

what this involves. Of one thing I am quite sure. Neither the government or any member of it nor any member of this parliament wishes to provide any aggressive force with the means of making a war that might spread and involve all of us in it.
It was with considerable heartburning, Mr. Speaker, that last week I voted for the amendment that was moved by the official opposition, because I saw that we perhaps might be denying to one side munitions of war that the other side was getting from another source. I saw that. Yet at the same time I could not bring myself to accept the wide open exportation in which the government has been engaged over the last period of time, sending munitions of war into an area which was explosive

and to both sides.
I am not going to detain the house any longer, Mr. Speaker, except to say this. I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with my colleagues yet, but I am going to vote for the amendment as I suspect they will, too, because I believe it has some merit. I hope that we shall not have to vote on it. I should like to see the government say that they accept this proposal, and that they are prepared to send the matter to the external affairs committee and let its members investigate it fully.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleased that such an amendment as this has been presented in the house this evening, because it gives us a further opportunity to suggest a way by which this parliament and the Canadian people can become a little bit more satisfied that things are being done properly within some of the departments of government. There is no doubt that considerable confusion existed in the attempt the government made to answer a question some days ago.
I need not now recapitulate the events to which I refer. We all recognize the fact that a question was answered, that the answer had to be modified and corrected, and that eventually another answer came down after several of the departments had got together. It therefore occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is just not enough co-ordination between certain departments of government. Perhaps they are not interrelated quite enough to carry on to the satisfaction of parliament the work of the country and the particular work affecting those departments. Perhaps there is an explanation of it.
Frankly, in some respects I have never been able to determine where the responsibility of one department ends and that of another department begins. Here I make reference to four separate departments of

government. We have the Department of External Affairs which deals with the relationships between this government and the governments of other countries on, shall we say, the diplomatic level. Then we have the Department of National Defence which has to do with the three branches of our forces and their relationship to other countries, wherever that relationship becomes involved. Then we have the Department of Defence Production, the responsibility of which is to see that-I was going to say war equipment- munitions and supplies are ordered, manufactured and delivered. Then we have the Department of Trade and Commerce, which strikes agreements with other countries.
It seems to me those four departments should be more correlated when it comes to the exports of munitions of war, because that is what they are. We can use the term "defence" all we like, so far as we in Canada are concerned we trust that those munitions will be used for the defence of our country. Nevertheless, if they are used, they will be used because there is war.
I say once again I do believe there is not enough co-ordination of these departments. If there had been, the confusion would not have arisen and would not have existed, and the answers to those questions would not have been brought down in the way they were. One of the questions was a very simple one. It was whether or not Harvard planes had been shipped to Egypt. It should not have taken very much investigation to answer that question adequately.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we must give some little leeway in answers which are not just at the fingertips of the ministers when the questions are asked. I think we all appreciate your magnanimous view of that question period which takes place before entering on the orders of the day. Sometimes we spend as much as an hour asking the ministers questions during that period. It is an admirable thing, and I am not going to blame the ministers too harshly if they are not too fully informed of all the details when questions are fired across the floor of the house. They have no notes and have to trust to their memories.
I recognize that some of those departments of government are huge. All you have to do is to open a departmental telephone book and see how many telephones there are reaching out all over the city of Ottawa in connection with perhaps one department. They are huge departments employing vast numbers of people, and the minister is bound to rely upon some of his deputies and understudies for his information.
Shipment of Arms Abroad
It is reasonable to suggest that in the end the government determines certain policies, and the minister relies upon his staff or his deputy to pursue the administration of the department in order to accomplish certain things within the policy which had been laid down. Therefore I am not going to be too harsh if the ministers do not immediately have at the tips of their tongues or the ends of their fingers all the details of the answers. But there is a way in which that can be handled. All the ministers have to do, as they often do, is rise and say that they are not acquainted with the answer at the time and that they will have to get some information on it, but they will see that the member asking the question gets the answer tomorrow. They have many experts and large staffs. Some of us wish we had some of them. It should not be too much to expect a minister to be able to supply us with a complete answer within 24 or 48 hours.
While I would be in favour of the amendment-and I think most of my colleagues in this corner of the house would be also-I do not know that I am altogether in favour of the speech made by the hon. gentleman who introduced it. I do not know, but to me the speech savoured a little of isolationist policy. Perhaps that will be denied, but that is all right; I will not make too much of it. I say now, I do not believe we can afford to be isolationists in the world in which we are living. That is one reason why this group voted against the two amendments that were proposed the other day on the shipment of armaments to the sensitive area in the Middle East.
Right here might I just interject and express a thought with respect to the advertisement to which the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), referred. I read that advertisement after it was drawn to my attention. There is no doubt about it, there was reference to munitions of defence. I do believe, however, many people read that advertisement and perhaps concluded that it was a good one. The reference to armaments was not too pronounced.


Major James William Coldwell: Was the picture not a lie?


Ernest George Hansell: I am coming to that. I am not now supporting the advertisement, but we should use well balanced judgment, because I doubt very much whether people's attention would have been drawn to it had the hon. member not mentioned it. There are a good many people who would read that advertisement and would say it was a good one. They would say, here is an advertisement which tells us to place a little more

Shipment of Arms Abroad dependence upon spiritual power than upon the power of arms. There are many people who would read it with that in mind.
As far as the church building is concerned, there was no mention of what building it was. To look at it you would think perhaps it was a fashionable church in New York city, and that very few people attended it. That is about the way you would look at it. I do not know the wisdom of mentioning what particular church it was. I agree with the hon. member that in this particular church they probably have a large congregation. While I am not an Anglican myself, I dodge around the city and I have been in that church. There was a good congregation when I was there. In fact, I must say that if you go to church on Sunday morning in Ottawa you will find the churches pretty well all filled.
However, there is that point there. People would get this from the advertisement, that we should depend on spiritual power more than we do, instead of relying on the force of arms. I mention that only in passing.
I said we in this party were not isolationists. That is why we voted against the amendments the other day. The world today is a very small world indeed, much smaller than it was a decade or a generation ago. We have only to read about supersonic jet propelled planes encircling the globe in a few hours in order to begin to realize how small the world really is. We are approaching a stage wherein no nation lives unto itself and we cannot ignore the fact that what happens to our neighbours-we are all neighbours in this world-is of very real concern to us.
Palestine, or to boil it down the state of Israel, is only a small piece of land. I believe there are farmers living in my own constituency who own and farm as much land as the total area of the state of Israel.


Major James William Coldwell: The total agricultural area, certainly.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, certainly. If a series of jet bombers were to strafe that country, they could do it within two or three minutes; it would not even take an hour. One might say that the state of Israel is an extremely sensitive area and arms should not be shipped there, but the argument can be used the other way. It is sensitive enough that this government should pay particular attention in respect of shipments to this area. It is not the withdrawal of arms from those areas that should concern the government but shipments of arms to those areas in order to stop any possible aggression.
If my information is correct, some of the iron curtain countries are shipping a great


many armaments into the Arab states, perhaps to Egypt in particular at this time. Indeed that is a sensitive area. Perhaps if we knew the whole truth we would say that the government should pay a little more attention to shipping armaments there; I do not know. I do not like to be interpreted at this time as suggesting a lot of arms shipments; nevertheless the world today is in such a state of uncertainty that all governments bear a responsibility in this respect. Might I say too that I have no brief for this government. I think it is-


Walter Edward Harris: Pretty good?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I do not think it is pretty good or we would not be out to try to unseat it. However, I am suggesting that if an outbreak of some magnitude should take place in the Middle East; if it should be revealed that one of the countries involved had called upon Canada for armaments and Canada, let us suppose, had refused to ship them, the very people who moved these amendments the other day would be among the first to criticize the government.


Mr. Mclvor:: Too little and too late.


Ernest George Hansell: I say that because, after all, governments have responsibilities and they must take the consequences of their decisions too. Therefore I say I am not too critical of the government on that particular score. However, in talking about the responsibilities of government I would venture to say, and I do so with some modification, that I do not know just how far an opposition in parliament should exert itself in telling the government how it should do something. As I have said, I make that statement with some degree of modification, and the reason is this. Over the years I have heard the government say, although not in so many words, "Well, how would you do it?" Any government that has to come to our party and ask how we would do it had better move over, let us assume control and show them how to do it.


An hon. Member:: You are not kidding.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not convinced that we in the opposition should tell this government what to do; and when the government ask us how we would do it my answer is, "Well, why ask us? If you have to ask us, then you do not know how to do it."


Mr. Dufresne:: Tell them where to go.


Ernest George Hansell: The government has a responsibility. Parties go out at election time and place their platforms before the people. They bid for power to run the country. When the people have put them into office then the

responsibility of the government is to deliver the goods. Our responsibility is not now to tell the government how to do its job. As voices of the people our responsibility here, whether on this side of the house or on the government side, is to severely criticize the government if it does not accomplish the thing it was elected to do.
Let me deal with this matter of exports of munitions of war. I agree with what has been said in this respect, that no one can tell the ultimate destination of these munitions whether they be actual war machinery or ammunition. No one can tell the ultimate destination to which they may go. I do not know what might be involved in these agreements that are signed between Canada and other nations, but we do know that previous to the last war a great deal of scrap iron was sold to countries which became our enemies. In fact I was once told that certain shells were fired at our Canadian boys, blowing them into eternity; and when our boys went over and captured the enemy territory they found the following words indented on the shells, "Made in-" and it was the name of one of the allied countries. That is something which to me is an eternal tragedy, that munitions of war manufactured in this country might be used against our own forces. That is what happened in the last war. That is what happened when our scrap iron was sent to Japan. This subject was brought up in this house over and over again in debates held during the last war.
There is another point which I should like to place before you, Mr. Speaker, which makes this motion commendable. At this time we hear a lot of talk concerning strategic materials going to other countries, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned it this afternoon. I have never been able to determine what that means. What are strategic materials? I do not know, but I think we should know. I believe that one thing this proposed committee could very well do would be to demand to know exactly what constitutes strategic materials. Even foodstuffs could be strategic materials under certain given conditions.
There is another point I should like to make. I do not know whether this motion will pass; I do not know whether the government will be magnanimous enough to say, "Yes, we want to lay our cards on the table," but even at that I do not think we can expect to discover a great deal. I will tell you why. During the war years we set up the war expenditures committee, and for one session I happened to be a member of that committee. Its work was of such a nature that it continued during the recess, and many of us
Shipment of Arms Abroad came back in the fall to continue our work even though parliament was not actually sitting.
We went into all sorts of things, contracts and one thing and another. We asked all the questions we wanted to ask. But hidden away in the estimates were items covering the expenditure of money to be used in the development of the atom bomb, and not one single member of parliament discovered them. That indicated pretty good work on the part of someone in keeping the secret. I do not believe any of us want to reveal such items as that, as we should be well balanced in our thinking. I agree that you cannot reveal to the enemy all you are doing, but this motion does not call for that.
All that is asked is that there be revealed to parliament the process by which this whole business of the export of munitions of war is carried on. That is really all it asks for. I would regard it as a sort of procedural motion, not as a want of confidence motion. It indicates a desire on the part of parliament to ask the government to put down its cards face up in respect to the process by which this whole business of the export of munitions of defence or of war to the rest of the world goes on.
I submit that is something we have a right to know. After all, we represent the people, and it is only through us that these demands can be made. It is only through members of parliament that these results can be obtained. The people cannot get them. How on earth can they get them? If they came to the government and wanted to know, would the government tell them? I do not think they would. They would regard it as something they should not reveal in that way. But members of parliament have the right to know the way these things are done.
That is all we are asking for, to be told the method by which it is done so we can come up with suggestions that may help the government. There could be no harm in that. If the government contend that possible recommendations are not as good as the practice they are following, they can scrap them. There is nothing mandatory about it. I should imagine the government would want to say, "If a committee can recommend a better way of doing this, then let us have it." That is the way I look upon the amendment, and for that reason we are going to vote for it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this problem of the control of armaments is certainly not new. It is something which has persisted all through history. I remember reading of the old days when the gentlemen of France objected to the use of
894	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad the crossbow by the English because it was an indecent weapon which resulted in the gentlemen getting killed. They suggested that the crossbow be abolished. Later on a similar objection was taken to the use of powder and guns. It was contended that they were indecent weapons which constituted a threat to chivalry, and therefore should be abolished.
So we have come down through the ages until today. In those days the opposition was not to the killing as much as it was to the method of killing. But the world has changed, and today we are looking upon this more realistically, as an objection to killing in itself. I think that is the gravamen of this debate, the basis for it, arising out of the discussions which have been taking place during the past few weeks.
As has been suggested by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), I suppose that technically this is a want of confidence motion; yet I am sure that if the government could see its way to accepting it, and I think they should, the matter could easily be resolved and there would be no question of confidence involved whatsoever. It does suggest something which I think the people of Canada want. They want an investigation into those matters which have been discussed during the past few weeks. They would like to see a committee of some kind established whereby a pattern would be laid down for this country to follow.
No country in the world has paid more lip service than Canada to the principles of the saving of life, the abolition of war and the United Nations. We have boasted of the fact that we were one of those responsible for the establishment of the United Nations; and I have heard it suggested that the distinguished gentleman, the Prime Minister, was father of the United Nations. We have heard praises heaped upon him throughout the years. The United Nations is supposed to be opposed to war and killing, and the charter of that organization says that all states shall settle disputes by peaceful means, and shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Those are mighty principles, and I think they are principles which should be supported. If so, then why are we engaged in the sale of arms to countries which are not associated with us either through NATO or through the commonwealth? A little while ago the hon. member for Macleod said that this motion savored something of isolationism, but I can assure him that there is nothing isolationist in the motion. In so far


as Canada is concerned, and in so far as the commonwealth is concerned, we believe that there should be complete freedom to do as we see fit in order to maintain our independence and to give us protection.
But when it comes to the sale of arms indiscriminately throughout the world, that is a different story entirely. Canada has taken an active part in the United Nations, not only in its organization but in the disarmament conferences that have been held. We have been members of those, and we have always urged disarmament. We have passed resolutions in the United Nations urging the countries of the world to disarm. On reading the minutes yesterday I noticed that we were the ones who negotiated with Russia and got that country to accept at least the nominal principle of disarmament.
Yet we have just listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) tell us about the countries to which we have been shipping arms. It is true the quantities are not so great, but I suggest it is not the quantity that counts, it is not a question of whether it is $1 million or $10 million worth of arms, because a bullet may mean a life. That is the way it should be considered. When bullets are sold lives are threatened and lives may be extinguished.
I suggest in all seriousness that in the way in which this government has been carrying on the sale of arms, even though they be in limited quantities, they have violated the principles of the United Nations, and have not been carrying out that principle which we have been preaching so long and so forcibly. In fact one might borrow a word that has been bandied about in the press lately; one might almost say they are United Nations deviates in the way they have acted in this matter. It is time to take a serious look at this. That is why this resolution has been moved.
There is something incongruous in their protestations of virtue on the one side and their practice on the other. Not only is it incongruous; it is almost an affectation, if not something very near to hypocrisy. It is true that they say it balances out. We send anti-aircraft guns to one country and the aircraft to the other, so that they will have an equal chance. When the guns shoot down the aircraft, we can say we did it. When the aircraft shoots the gun crew, we can say we did it. So we are all right, whichever way it goes. That is not, I think, the way in which this matter should be handled.
We were told that the procedure was a very simple one. I looked up the act today, the Export and Import Permits Act. It is a statute that was passed some years ago and

which expires, according to the act, in 1957. Under this act we have delegated certain powers to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The governor in council can name products and countries. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce decides whether permits will be issued. That is what the act says. Under it all the power is delegated to the minister. Even the greatest critics of the minister-and I am sure he will admit that he has quite a few-will not deny the fact that he is a very busy man who is administering two departments, to say nothing of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, T.C.A. and many other things. It is not good enough that these powers should be delegated to that one man to exercise in this way.
It is true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that there is a code which is followed. He said it does not work out that way, and it is not left to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said that if there are sensitive areas-whatever they may be, and there are 34 of them, some of them presumably more sensitive than others-then a conference is held among the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
That is fine in theory, but does it work? As I have said, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is very busy. The Minister of National Defence is probably over in Paris attending a NATO conference; and the Secretary of State for External Affairs may be making a long-delayed trip to Israel. When we ought to have a conference, the Minister of Trade and Commerce usually has to go ahead. He usually issues a permit and then forgets about it. Undoubtedly that is what happened in these cases to which reference was made the other day.
I was reminded of the story about the big fellow and the little jaunty fellow with the bow tie who had been out hunting together for a long time and were used to each other. They finally came to the edge of a clearing. They looked across and saw a deer, as they thought. They both fired and hit it. The little fellow said, "We shot it." The big fellow said, "What do you mean, 'we'? I shot it." They walked across the clearing and found that, instead of a deer, it was a horse. The little fellow said, "Boy, we are in trouble." The big fellow said, "What do you mean, 'We're in trouble'? You are in trouble." That was the pattern that was established in this discussion of who issued what and where and how.
In any event, I suggest that that procedure is not as set forth by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It could not have been,
Shipment of Arms Abroad because never was a matter so clear cut; never was a matter so circumscribed by rules and regulations; never was such a clear directive given as to how it should operate; yet never did a matter cause so much delay, so much confusion in explanation, so much circumlocution and-I think I can say, too- never did an explanation prompt so many revisions. Certainly it could not be so clear and it could not operate in quite the way in which we were told it operated; otherwise we would have had a more clear cut explanation than we did receive.
Some may say, "We have not sold much." The Secretary of State for External Affairs says, "This is all right. If we were immoral, other people were more immoral. If we were wrong in doing this, then somebody else was more wrong." I do not think we should accept that principle of morality. I heard a lecturer on morality once give an illustration. He said that at election time an old man had been approached by a Conservative agent who offered him $3 for his vote. The Liberal agent then offered him $5 for his vote. He took both amounts. When asked for whom he voted, he said, "Of course I voted for the Conservatives, because they were less corrupt than the Liberals."
That is the same principle the Secretary of State for External Affairs was trying to elaborate the other night: "We are less corrupt than Britain or less corrupt than the United States, because we do not sell quite so many arms and do not get quite so much money for them." I do not think we can accept that principle. I suggest the time has come when we should accept a definite code of conduct in this matter, and we should have a clear cut investigation of it by the parliament of Canada as a whole. Then the people of Canada will feel much happier about it than they do now.
It is true that some will say the arms we sold were not very powerful, that they were only old material or they were tank tracks or rifles or ammunition of some kind that would not hurt very much. But a bullet will kill you as fast as an atomic weapon. Once you are dead it does not make much difference which way it comes. That argument is one that surely cannot appeal to our reason. It is true that in the old days those were the conventional weapons, but today the time is rapidly coming when somebody sitting in an easy chair can push a button and start a projectile hurtling through the air which in a matter of a few minutes or a few hours can bring death and devastation to tens of thousands of people. Those weapons can be exchanged back and forth, and we can blast this world out of existence.
896	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad
We know that great wars start from small ones. There is an old adage that great oaks from little acorns grow. We have been told by everyone that the deterrent effects of nuclear weapons are such that no one is going to start on his own initiative a nuclear war. Eut one may be started easily, possibly from the smaller conflagrations starting out with conventional weapons, and that is one of the things we should try to avoid.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said this afternoon that wherever there has been shooting in the past five years in Central or South America, we were sending arms there. Why? So people could get lulled. They can be killed with our bullets. We are shipping arms to various sensitive centres, 34 sensitive centres in the world. I do not know how sensitive they are, but I presume that the more sensitive they are the less arms we ship and, therefore, the fewer people we kill. But is that the principle on which we want to operate? I do not think there is an hon. member in this house who wants to subscribe to that practice.
I do not want to engage in hyperbole or exaggeration at all; therefore I will not say that the people of Canada generally have been shocked. But I do say that they have been profoundly bothered by the disclosures and the debates of the past two weeks. I do not think our people want our government, directly or indirectly, to be mixed up in the sale of arms or permitting the sale of arms except to our own associates and allies where we know, as well as we can reasonably know anything, that they are going to be used for our own defence.
That is what we should aim at. No one knows how much has been sold. No one can tell. The dollar value means nothing. You sell something for a few cents on the dollar and you say that you have only sold a million dollars worth. Well, a million dollars worth of bullets will do quite a lot of damage. If that million dollars worth happened to be on the basis of 5 cents on the dollar you would be selling a lot more than a million dollars worth.
No one knows how much has been sold for scrap. I noticed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day, in response to a question, said that he had gone back as far as January, 1952, and had found that wherever guns had been sold for scrap the barrels were defaced so they could not be used as weapons.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that if he had gone back one month beyond that, if he had gone back to December, 1951, he would have found a situation where the barrels were not defaced for scrap. There was an incident in


the city of Halifax at that time in connection with scrap. Men were engaged by War Assets in packing and crating scrap to be sold through a certain company which was exporting it out of the country. Many of the men working there were returned men from the second world war. They became somewhat incensed about this scrap which was being packed and the price they believed the government was getting for it, about 25 cents a pound.
Good machine guns were being included in that scrap. So these men, decent Canadians, said. "We will fix this." They took acetylene torches and burned the barrels of 71 of these guns, and defaced them so they were properly scrap. These were Browning machine guns. The man who was buying them came down and said, "I am not going to take these." They said, "You are buying scrap and at 25 cents a pound; you will take them." He said, "I will show you. The government will deal with you."
Inside of a week instructions came from the director of armament in Ottawa, Mr. Monroe, telling them in Halifax that these guns had not been sold for scrap purposes. I do not know what that word "purposes" means, Mr. Speaker. You either know whether you are selling scrap or you do not. But in this case these men were told that they had not been sold for scrap purposes and the men who had defaced them were ordered to replace the barrels, the 71 that had been burned. They were ordered to take 71 barrels off repairable or serviceable Browning machine guns.
There we have an incident where people were buying so-called scrap and paying scrap prices for it, and this happened only one month previous to the time covered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his check. He said he went back to January, 1952. If he had gone back to December, 1951-perhaps that is why he did not go back-	,


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had better do it now.


George Clyde Nowlan: -he would have found this situation. He would have found that we replaced 71 barrels on those scrap guns with serviceable or repairable barrels. They were then exported to one of the countries about which we have been talking during the last few days. I have the bill of lading for the freight car. I have the number of the freight car.
It has been suggested that they were not sold for scrap purposes. I can tell you that the C.N.R. hauled the car out of the yard in Halifax as scrap. The bill of lading said "scrap" and the freight rate applicable to

scrap was paid. They were shipped to Montreal and from there overseas. One hundred and twenty-five guns were sold as scrap. Seventy-one of them only had been defaced and the 71 barrels had to be replaced. That is a situation which developed in this country. True, it was five years ago. True, it was in December, 1951.


An hon. Member:: Where were they going?


George Clyde Nowlan: They were shipped to Montreal and were exported from Montreal. That is what happened in that particular case. As I said, we do not know. We talk about dollars. What is the value of that in a situation such as this, when you are getting so many cents a pound? The men who were packing them believed, rightly or wrongly, that the people exporting them were getting $250 apiece for them. Whether they were or not I do not know, but that was the situation in that particular case. I believe the same thing has happened scores and scores of times all across this country. ;I believe there have been numerous instances in connection with the sale of such weapons.
It is time for an investigation. It is time something was done about it. I believe that is one example that will impress anybody with the necessity of having a committee to study these things; because when you get young Canadians, boys who served overseas who were working on this material, getting so indignant at what was going on that they did what they did and then were reprimanded for it and had to replace the barrels, you can see that this is not a matter to be dealt with jocularly. I think it is much more serious than that.
This afternoon we were told that the temporary embargo imposed a while ago had been lifted. There will be ample opportunity to debate that at some other time, but there again it shows the necessity for some investigation. Either the government was right in putting on an embargo or it was not, and if it was right it should not have taken it off. It certainly showed that it was very worried, very uncertain, very jittery about something when the embargo was first put on, and now we are told it has been taken off.
It may be that the government knows of certain factors which, of course, are not known, and properly so, to all members of the House of Commons. We cannot expect that, but I do suggest that the embargo could have been retained, we could have had a committee investigation, and we could have evolved a code of conduct which would have been more satisfactory than what is now in operation in this country, because the whole background of this discussion has shown uncertainty and indecision and I know has caused unrest.
Shipment of Arms Abroad.
What we are asking for is an investigation by a committee of this parliament, not a punitive one, not a witch hunt, nothing of that kind, but a committee which can discover the facts and establish a code of conduct, because I think that is necessary. Someone may say, "Well, what is the good of a code?" Somebody has to make a start. Disarmament, to which we have paid lip service for years, is not going to come overnight. If we wait for every country in the world to do it at the same time it is never going to come. There is jockeying back and forth between the great powers. Russia says, "Disarm nuclear weapons", and naturally the western powers say, "We cannot disarm nuclear weapons because then you are going to have a tremendous advantage in conventional weapons, so you reduce your conventional weapons and we will keep the nuclear weapons."
The see-saw argument has been going on now for three or four years. I know there are some hon. members opposite, as well as some on this side of the house, who have taken part in the United Nations. They have sat and watched the play acting going on with respect to this matter. They are simply mouthing words; that is all they are doing. If you read the report of the United Nations for the last four years dealing with disarmament, as I did yesterday, you will find that the whole debate turns on whether they will amend subsection A of paragraph B and so on. It almost sounds like one of those amendments of the Income Tax Act the Minister of Finance brings in every once in a while that no one can understand. They get bogged down and involved in these long, technical, boring amendments, and in the end they get nowhere. I say that a beginning has to be made some place.
As for the right hon. gentleman who was here this afternoon and whom we were all so happy to hear speak to us-and he is still in the city tonight-so far as my reading goes of anything he has said about foreign affairs he has expressed the view that you must start with small things; that you cannot expect to settle overnight all the problems of the world; that you get a little approach made here and a little advance made there, and then gradually you can attempt to arrive at a solution of these problems.
I have a suggestion to make. It is only a small thing, perhaps, but I suggest that Canada can set an example on this matter. I suggest that we can establish a code which we can agree to maintain strictly, and which will be about as close to getting disarmament as is reasonable or practically possible by a middle class power to establish in this troubled world today. If we can do that we will make one step-and it is a positive step
898	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad -along the road to total disarmament and to peace. That is what this world needs. I think that is what Sir Anthony Eden would advise.
Although some may say that this is only a minor matter, that this will not get as anywhere, I say this to the government: Why do you not try it? Why do we not set an example to the rest of the world in this matter? Perhaps we could send out a little beacon light across the troubled waters, which in the end will evolve into a great burning light which will lead the nations of the world to disarmament which seems so far away at the present time. That is why I urge the government to accept this proposal, in the belief that the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada will welcome it.
Some hors. Members:	Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready
for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to rise in this debate at this time, but I feel that the matter under discussion is of great importance to the Canadian people. I am sorry that no speaker from any other party sees fit to take part in the debate at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: He said "at this time". He is right.


John Angus MacLean: I mean at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Give us a chance.


John Angus MacLean: Until now no member of the government party has taken part in the debate.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: You should know. You never let us know this was coming down.


William Earl Rowe: We are not running the house yet.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, in the past number of years Canada has enjoyed an enviable position in the councils of the nations of the world. We have attained that position because we have been looked upon as a disinterested and fair nation, a nation of people who are basically peace-loving and, perhaps most of all, a nation which would be loath to improve its position, especially in a material sense, at the expense of any other nation, great or small. I say with regret that, owing to the things which have been taking place over the last few years and which are now gradually being revealed, I am afraid that Canada has gone at least some way toward
[Mr. Nowlan.l

losing that enviable position which she has held. I believe the situation can still be saved, but I think the Canadian people have real concern over the state of affairs which is now disclosed to them.
There are, of course, those who would say that it is in the revelation of the facts that the mischief lies and that the facts themselves, if perfectly concealed, may do little or no damage. The people who put forward that point of view, for reasons of their own, belong to the school who think that undetected crime is practically tantamount to virtue; and I think such a point of view is not worthy of any further consideration.
Owing to the importance of Canada's position in the world today an importance that will continue to grow as we grow as a nation,
I believe it becomes vitally important to the cause of peace and to the furtherance of our own interests that we should see that our position is preserved. A fair question to ask is this. What are we doing at the present time to preserve that position? I do not think that aggravating the situation in sensitive areas of the world by even token shipments of arms to any side in any dispute is furthering our interests. When we do that we betray the confidence which the peoples of the world have placed in us as a disinterested and fair nation. I believe the Canadian people feel that the government should be alert to the situation at all times and that under no circumstances should any action be taken that might upset the balance in any particular area or set a match to the powder kegs which exist in many places in the world today.
Some people may say that the exporters of those arms are to blame, and that if they were men of conscience they would not engage in such a business. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that they should not be called upon to judge whether or not it is wise or right to ship arms to a particular area. These exporters apply to the government, and rightly so, for permits to export arms or other materials to various areas. When they are given an export permit they naturally assume that the Canadian people, through their government, have put the stamp of approval on that transaction.
It is up to us to see that Canada does not engage in any traffic in arms which might threaten the peace of the world, and to see that none of its citizens do so. As the representatives of the Canadian people it behooves us to see that the wishes of the Canadian people are carried out. That is a heavy responsibility which is placed squarely on our shoulders, and we must face up to it. I believe the people of Canada wish that we

should not contribute to the suffering and misery of any people whose homes may be ravaged by war or insurrection of any kind, even if it is on a small scale. We should not provide the spark to set alight the powder keg of war in any area. We all know that in this shrinking world a small conflagration anywhere may rapidly spread into a raging prairie fire that would sweep across the world and engulf us all in a third world war. Such a war, if it ever comes, will be a catastrophe, because with the advent of modern atomic weapons the danger of our very civilization being wiped out is very great indeed.
I think it was Sir Winston Churchill, in referring to the first world war shortly after its close, who said that victory was bought at such a price as to make it almost indistinguishable from defeat. If a third world war should ever come there would be no victor.
I think it is a fair question to ask ourselves at the present time, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we think the wishes of the Canadian people are now being carried out. I would like to think they are, but I am forced reluctantly to doubt whether they are.
Earlier this session a question was asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the export of certain aircraft. He rose in his place and said that he knew of no such export. Later information showed that aircraft were being exported at that particular time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs should have known whether or not aircraft were being exported. Furthermore, I would say that it should be impossible for munitions of war of any sort, especially aircraft, to be exported without the knowledge of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Later on a similar question was asked of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Camp-ney) regarding the export of certain war material, and he said he had no knowledge of it. That is a state of affairs that should not exist. It should not be possible for those things to go on without the knowledge of the responsible ministers.
Still later a question was put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is responsible for the act under which these exports are made, namely the Export and Import Permits Act. The question had to do with the export of certain aircraft. It seemed to be the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that since the aircraft were small and of a commercial type the question was irrelevant, or almost so, as far as the possibility of any danger being involved in the export of such aircraft. That is not a good explanation.
I point out that the list of materials which require export permits includes, of course,
67509-57i
Shipment of Arms Abroad and rightly so, civilian aircraft, equipment and parts thereof. The minister tried to belittle the incident by saying the aircraft in question was merely a Chipmunk, which is a light training aircraft to be used, he said, in patrolling certain oil lines. I would point out that aircraft of any kind may add to the potential of any nation to making war. The then minister of national defence recognized that very thing when he spoke in a debate in this house on April 15, 1953. In referring to Canada's definite offer he had this to say, as reported at page 3922 of Hansard:
We are producing the F-86E, the CF-100, the T-33 trainer, the latest Harvard type trainer, plus light transport aircraft-the Otter, the Beaver and the Chipmunk, leading aircraft of their type. As far as we know there is not anything to match them; and it is high time, I think, that the Canadian people began to recognize that their air force has become one of the leading air forces in effective fighting power on our side today.
The then minister of national defence recognized in that statement that aircraft, even light aircraft, adds to one's potential; and the importance of aircraft varies a great deal, of course, with the situation. Of course, a Chipmunk or a Beaver aircraft, or aircraft of similar types, would be sitting ducks if they were to operate against perhaps Sabres or some other type of modern jet-propelled aircraft, but they are very formidable weapons if they are operating against stray patrols on a desert who have no adequate means of protecting themselves against aircraft. As a matter of fact some of these similar types are ideal for that sort of thing.
Then aircraft can take on special importance, even obsolescent types of aircraft, or small transport aircraft, under certain conditions. During the last war the R.A.F. found it necessary, when the threat of invasion was very great and the means of defence very small, to prepare to use Tiger Moths and other very light training aircraft for offensive purposes against ground troops if an invasion came.
I seek clarification of the statement of the minister regarding this particular aircraft. The minister said the aircraft in question was a Chipmunk. I seek this information by the way. Since the minister himself is not in his seat, perhaps he might have notice given of it so that an answer can be forthcoming. I note that the item regarding that aircraft is listed as being in one case about $44,000, and in the other, about $41,000. That is approximately the price of a Beaver aircraft. I think a Beaver aircraft sells for $35,000 plus in this country depending on what equipment is on it; and a Chipmunk, which is the other aircraft, costs about $25,000 in this country. I should like to have an explanation of the great difference in price.
gOO	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad
In the course of the questions and answers on the orders of the day over the last two days, it would appear there has been an attempt on the part of the government to belittle our exports of arms and other warlike material in certain cases because they are obsolete, or the items themselves are small, or the quantity is not great. This makes little sense to me. What the government is saying in effect when such exports go to sensitive areas is that we are only tossing small sparks into the powder keg. I would like to point out that under certain circumstances even small contributions of lethal weapons can be very aggravating to the persons on whom they are used.
I am speaking only from memory in this case but I believe it was the Prime Minister who recently said that when export permits were asked for, great consideration was given to the situation and an endeavour was made to ensure that the export would not upset the balance of power between two of these minor countries, and therefore there would be no danger of their engaging in an arms race. It would seem to me there might be occasions when we might believe the power as between two nations was in balance, but I think it would be an extremely difficult task to convince them, if they were in balance, to stay that way. I am sure if a small nation with aggressive or belligerent tendencies were do learn that its power was in balance with its would-be victim, it would not be satisfied *with that situation and would make every effort to get the balance upset in its own favour as quickly as possible.
Even if it were possible to maintain perfect balance as between two small countries, what is the objective? Is it to keep them in a state of tension, sniping at each other indefinitely in an indecisive way until they eventually attain the condition of the Kilkenny cats? What is the motive? There is great danger that a small war may spread and involve the whole civilized world. In this day of the atom bomb such an event would be absolutely fatal to our civilization, in all probability, if a full scale war were waged.
I therefore think this theory is completely <unsound; it is much akin to using the argument that if you see two small boys fighting in the street and the little fellow is getting the worst of the deal, you should furnish him -with a brick in order that he might try to knock out the bigger fellow's brains. That does not make sense to me. I think what is required is a firm, honest approach to the situation. The boys should be chastised and if necessary the police should be called.
That, I think, is the situation today as far as small belligerent nations are concerned.


After all, the United Nations was set up as an organization in an attempt to find a means of resolving differences between nations by means other than war and force.
I believe it has been said in this house that if we were to refuse arms shipments to a small nation, we might be endangering its existence by withholding from it its ability to defend itself. In that regard I should like to point out that the United States appears to be of the same opinion as I am with regard to the two small boys. Just the other day the government of the United States turned down a request from Israel for a shipment of $50 million worth of arms on the grounds that such a shipment would not be in the interests of the maintenance of peace in the area concerned, but rather that such a shipment would further endanger peace in that area. If war is to be prevented it must be prevented by the existence of a force which can compel small nations who are bickering among themselves to come to the conclusion that they must resort to reasonableness and compromise to settle their differences.
I think, Mr. Speaker, we cannot further Canada's interests and retain for Canada the enviable position it has attained in world affairs if we renounce our ideals and our principles for some minor convenience for somebody. I believe that in the end ideals are still of greater consequence and value than are bombs, even than atom bombs under some circumstances.
This cabinet includes men, I believe, who would like to be looked upon, or who would like to think they are looked upon, as world statesmen. This is the opportunity for them to prove their worth. An amendment has been proposed asking that the whole question of the export of arms on the part of Canada be thoroughly examined so the facts may be revealed. If we have the facts we can then determine where we should go and what action should be taken. If this government is made up of men of good will I think they will welcome such a committee. They will see in it the opportunity to demonstrate their capabilities in dealing with these matters of world importance.
I think the Canadian people at this time demand a frank, forthright statement as to what is the situation. The Canadian people do not want truculence on the part of their ministers, they want candor. The Canadian people rightly demand that they have the right to work out their own destiny. Not only do they want to know where they are going, they want to know to where they may be led. I am quite sure the vast majority of the Canadian people have had no idea that Canada was

exporting arms and munitions of war to areas other than NATO and commonwealth countries. I think it is only reasonable to ask that the Canadian people should be made fully aware of what the code of conduct shall be for Canada when considering the export of arms or munitions of any sort to any part of the world.
If this government is made up of men of good will they will welcome this opportunity, they will welcome the assistance which representatives of the people would be able to give them in trying to find a means of controlling the export of arms so that such export will work to the benefit of the Canadian people and for the cause of peace. They should be glad that we are seeking the facts; they should be glad that an opportunity is being given for merit to be recognized, for errors to be corrected and for objectives to be attained.
If they wish to prove themselves men of good will they will accept this amendment knowing that it will provide an opportunity for them to demonstrate if not their efficiency at least their high motives. Naturally I assume that the members of the government are men of good will; as a matter of fact I guess I have no other choice. This is essentially a problem of external affairs, and the conduct of a maturing nation in world affairs is vital to the Canadian people. If Canada with the growth of its strength is to retain the high position it has held in the councils of the world we must be sure that we act in the interests not only of ourselves and of our allies but of peace as well.
I am happy to support the amendment which has been moved, and I hope it will be accepted by the government. By doing so they will demonstrate that they are men of good will. I believe completely that on earth there shall be peace to men of good will.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, this whole question of the sale of arms, munitions and equipment of war is of course closely tied up with the whole matter of disarmament. Last fall I had the pleasure of being a parliamentary observer at the tenth general assembly of the United Nations and sitting in at all the meetings of the disarmament conference. Anyone who has had that opportunity I think will realize fully the difficulties of the problem of disarmament. World disarmament cannot be achieved very easily, but I think the general observation can be made that the indiscriminate sale of arms, particularly to trigger-happy tribesmen and others, will do nothing to further improve world peace. I certainly think that Canada,
Shipment of Arms Abroad which is so highly respected among other countries, should set an example in this regard.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre moved the following amendment:
That, in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment. should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
That amendment naturally brings two questions to mind. First, assuming that a code of procedure is needed, why have the proposed committee recommended such a code of procedure? Second, why is a code of procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, munitions and military equipment needed at all?
With respect to the first question, apparently there is no procedure at the present time with regard to the issuing of export permits for arms and other military equipment. This has become quite obvious since the opening of this session from the answers that have been received to questions asked. Apparently we can expect that sometimes the government makes these decisions, while on other occasions, as the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon, the decisions are purely ministerial and nothing else.
This proposed committee, which I hope will be set up, should certainly formulate a code of procedure so that hon. members can find out, in camera if necessary, the quantities shipped, their destinations, the controls over the shipment of arms and the reasons for the shipments. I am sure that Canadians generally do not wish this country to be regarded by other countries as a merchant of death. If we are going to sell arms I think the reasons for selling them should be carefully considered.
This code of procedure should set out controls over the ultimate destination of arms. Arms may apparently be going to country A but it may be quite possible that they will end up in country B. Third, and most important of all, this procedure should be such as to assure that all ministers of the crown are informed of what arms sales are being approved.
My second question is, why should there be a special procedure necessary for the sale of arms? Arms are a very special commodity; they are not like apples, potatoes, wheat, fish or anything like that. The sale of arms to other countries could very well alter longterm government policy or even short-term government policy toward such countries or toward related countries. There can be
902	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad nothing but confusion if one minister permits the sale of arms without the other ministers knowing about it, particularly if the policy toward the government that may be affected by the sale is the responsibility of ministers who are not informed about the sale.
Since I have come to this house I have heard the government referred to as acting in such a way that the one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. I do not know that that is a suitable metaphor and I think we should go back to ancient times, to Greek mythology, to find a more suitable comparison. One of the labours of Hercules was to slay a creature called the Hydra or better known as the seven-headed serpent. This was a creature with one body and seven heads all going in different directions, and one not knowing what the other ones were doing.


An hon. Member:: That is the government.


An hon. Member:: They have seven bodies and one head.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It might be better, in view of the remarks of my hon. friend, to have seven bodies and one head rather than one body and seven heads going in different directions. I should like to give a few illustrations of the point I have just made. First of all, the sale of arms can affect the long-range policies of the government. I think there is very little question about the fact that the general long-range policy of this government is to maintain world peace. That is what we have been told in this house and outside it. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the London Free Press, week end magazine edition, for January 28, 1956. This is an article entitled "This is our Foreign Policy" by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On page 2 of this edition the article states, referring to Canada:
We are respected because we try to play a constructive and conciliatory role in international affairs.
Continuing a little further, it states on page 3:
We are respected also because we have not hesitated to accept our share of the burden of maintaining peace and promoting friendship between peoples; in the United Nations, in NATO, and elsewhere.
A little further on it states:
That, in fact, is the aim of our foreign policy: to play our full part in collective action for peace and in the search for solutions to the problems that now so dangerously divide the world.
It would seem to me that the sale of arms to the countries in the Caribbean, as referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and elsewhere, can hardly bring about such conciliation and conciliatory measures.


More important, these approvals of the sale of arms by one minister of the crown when the others are apparently unaware of it, in effect are short-term policies toward various countries.
The same article to which I have already referred in a box on page 4, stated the policy of this government toward Israel and the Arab countries, as follows:
We have had requests in the past-in the last few years-from both Israel and Egypt and other Arab states. Our attitude is to do nothing that would disturb the military balance-
Here is what might be called the punch line:
-or add to their offensive strength.
This is an article written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs laying down government policy with respect to Israel and the Arab States. It says that the policy is to add nothing to their offensive strength; yet we have had admissions this year of the approval of sales of arms to those countries. There is hardly any consistency in that.
For these reasons we must have a code of procedure with respect to the sale of arms, even if it does nothing more than inform all ministers of the crown as to what arms are being shipped to other countries. The present slipshod, slap-happy method of doing things can only lead, as it has already, to disintegration of government policy. You might say that the present policy is simply an illustration of "I don't know where I'm going but I'm on my way."


Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I intend my remarks to be very brief, but they will not be as brief as three minutes. I do not know whether to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Apparently there is not consent. I have been interested in this debate and have been asking myself, if the government is not prepared to agree to this, why that can be so. I would like to read the resolution to remind the house what is in it, how simple it is and how obvious is its good sense. The amendment is:
That, In the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
The first question that arises is as to whether there is now a definite code of procedure. I would think any member in this house and, most of all, any member of the government

would be quick to agree that there is no definite code of procedure. I was going to say that at best there was a hodgepodge of understandings among ministers, but I think that would be a great exaggeration. I think I should say "a hodgepodge of misunderstandings", because we never seemed to get to the point where there was an understanding among the ministers. We had an interesting galaxy of ministers parading before us- the minister of external affairs, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Defence-and we got an interesting glimpse of the way they communicate with each other. I am reminded of the Prime Minister, but I omitted the Prime Minister because I think he was as innocent of the whole matter as a new born babe.


Mr. Hees:: They do not tell him what is going on.
Shipment of Arms Abroad


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I doubt if he even heard any of the echoes that reverberated from department to department.


George Harris Hees: They never tell the boss.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That being so I come back to my first suggestion, that the government should be very glad indeed to have a definite code of procedure, and that a very sensible way of getting it would be the method suggested in this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, if my eyes tell me rightly it is ten o'clock. As the rest of my speech contains a few suggestions as to the only possible reasons the government could have for not agreeing to this, perhaps the government would be more interested in hearing them tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Macdonnell the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Can the Department of National Revenue register a judgment or otherwise force payments of tax arrears without a court order?
2.	If so, under what authority?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1. An amount payable under the Income Tax Act may be certified by the Minister of National Revenue after 30 days default in payment or forthwith if, in the opinion of the minister, there has been an attempt to avoid payment. Such certificate may be registered in the Exchequer Court of Canada. When so registered, the certificate has the same force and effect and all proceedings may be taken thereon as if such certificate were a judgment of that court.
2. The Income Tax Act, R.S.C. chapter 148, section 119 and section 51(2).
Customs and Excise Division-
1. A certificate of default with respect to sales and excise taxes may be registered similarly in the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. chapter 100, section 50 (4).


EGRET FEATHERS
Mr. Regier: 1.	Is the importation of the feathers of the egret bird permitted?
2.	If so, what is the estimate of the number of birds that had to be killed to supply Canada with aigrette in 1955?
3.	Have any representations been made to the government asking for a ban on such imports, and what has been the nature of the reply?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1. Aigrettes and egret plumes have been prohibited importation into Canada for many years (item 1212 of schedule C to the Customs Tariff).
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
of
RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR ANTHONY EDEN Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
to

[Stage Direction]
in the

[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 6, 1956, at 2.30 p.m.
Sir Anthony Eden was introduced by Mr. St. Laurent.
Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker of the House of Commons, presided.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, fellow members of parliament, it is my agreeable duty and privilege to welcome to the Canadian parliament the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This I do with warm personal pleasure, and I know that all members share that pleasure and wish me to express on their behalf, as well as my own, our most cordial greetings to our distinguished guest.
We were all delighted, sir, when we learned that it would be possible for you to spend a few days in our capital following your important discussions in Washington, and that you had graciously accepted to speak to us here this afternoon.
I should like also to say how happy we are that the foreign secretary, Right Hon. Selwyn Lloyd, was able to accompany you on this visit. To him as well we extend a sincere and hearty welcome.
We recall, Mr. Prime Minister, that you previously addressed this parliament some 13 years ago when we were emerging from the darkest and most dangerous days of the war. The might of the enemy forces was still great, but the dawn of ultimate victory was beginning to appear.
Those of us who were here have vivid recollections of the inspiring message of courage and confidence you brought us from the battle-scarred but indomitable British nation.
You were then the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a wartime government headed by one of the great Englishmen of historical fame, that towering figure, Sir Winston Churchill, to whom the whole free world will remain forever indebted.
Today we welcome you as the worthy successor in office of that great man, and we do 67509-58
so on the morrow of your visit to Washington where you have been strengthening Anglo-American co-operation and friendship, the essential foundation for the structure of peace which we are all striving to build.
May we be permitted to congratulate you on the success of that mission? Of course, I do not need to tell you that whenever London and Washington and Paris seek to deepen their friendly understanding, there is a feeling of very special satisfaction in Ottawa.
That visit to Washington was only another instance of the energetic, skilful and constructive part which you have played in international affairs during these troubled and trying years.
Your visit to us emphasizes the close association we enjoy with the United Kingdom and the other members of our commonwealth of nations. That association, based on the freedom of its members, spans the oceans and the continents; it is playing a worthy part in the search for peace, security and constructive progress.
We are also proud of our association with the United Kingdom as allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and as fellow members of the United Nations. In these organizations, too, we appreciate the opportunities of working with you for the strengthening of the free world and the maintenance of peace.
(Translation):
Mr. Prime Minister, you know that there are in Canada, and in this parliament, two official languages. And so I wish to tell you, on behalf of Canadians of French descent like myself, how happy they are also to greet you here and to extend to you a most hearty welcome.
I am conscious of accurately expressing the feelings of my fellow Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific when I say that they have the very highest regard for you.

Address by Sir Anthony Eden
(.Text):
I now invite Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to address us.
Righl Hon. Sir Anthony Eden (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom): Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, Mr. Prime Minister, I am indeed grateful to you, sir, for your generous words, and to the Canadian parliament for this invitation. I am deeply moved by the compliment which you have paid to me for the second time in my life. That must be a rare event. I believe that it is in fact unique in history. On neither occasion, Mr. Speaker, have I been able to catch your eye. I do trust the backbench members will not in consequence be so much aggrieved that they will move the closure on me. I was a little reassured to learn, sir, that this is an unusual custom for your parliament.
You know that I speak sincerely when I say I am happy to be amongst you again. It is now 30 years since I first came to Canada and travelled across your country. On many occasions since then I have had opportunities to visit your vast and hospitable land. I am proud to think that I have more friends here than in any country outside my own.
(Translation):
French-speaking Canadians, I thank you cordially for your welcome. I do wish to say how much I admire and respect that culture and those traditions you so proudly preserve. You know that I am genuinely glad to be amongst you again. Thirty years have elapsed since my first visit to Canada. I have returned several times to your vast and hospitable land and, on each occasion, I have found many old friends and have made new ones.
I am deeply grateful for the high honour you have paid me in inviting me, for the second time in my life, to address the Canadian parliament.
(Text) :
Inevitably, my mind goes back this afternoon to that earlier occasion, to which you, Mr. Prime Minister, have referred, when I spoke to you during the war. Then, though the tide had turned, victory had yet to be won and the future beyond it lay all uncertain. He would be a rash man or an ill-informed man who would attempt a confident prophecy for mankind today.
Yet there is a certain balance sheet of good and evil which we can draw up, and I propose to do so, and to begin with the good, because it is more comforting that way. There is next the unshakable strength of

the Anglo-American alliance in which we all join. Third, the growing unity of western Europe within the framework of NATO. Fourth, and grimmer but still real, the deterrent power of the new weapons, including the hydrogen bomb, which restrain where they cannot reform. Fifth, the growing understanding by the west of the threat of communist penetration which it has to meet and of the new methods which we will have to employ.
And now on the debit side I would cite, first, the increasing hazards which some are prepared to take; second, the dangers of aggression by countries which believe they can ignore the deterrent; third, the continued existence of local disputes, whose consequences could engulf the world; fourth, the daily communist call to abhor the west sounds sharply. In contrast, the steady effort of the west to raise the standard of life for all free people must take time. It is easier to spread hatred than to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before.
Mr. Speakers, it is with this balance of good and evil in mind that we have to prepare ourselves. Economic weapons may take the place of military ones. But always our purpose must be the same; to maintain the right that men's minds may be free and the care that their bellies be filled. Well now, to achieve this, free nations like ourselves, like free men, must draw and hold together and it is in the spirit of those reflections that I would like to make some comments on the recent conversations which I have held in Washington with President Eisenhower.
I can best sum up my impressions of those talks by saying that there has never been so full a measure of agreement between our governments. In the whole field of European diplomacy, which a year or two back was troublesome enough, there was no difference between us. You may have noticed the attempts of the Kremlin to obscure the issues and confuse our councils. In fact they only provided most obligingly an opportunity to underline the unity between the United States and ourselves.
Now, Mr. Speaker, much of our meeting was devoted to the difficult and critical problems of the Middle East. Here too we were in agreement that the first danger was the continuing Arab-Israel dispute. We were also in agreement as to what we should do to try to resolve it. We decided that the necessary treatment should be of three kinds. We should continue to work without publicity-I really think diplomacy is more effective without publicity-and by every means to bring about a settlement in that area. This can only be realized if both sides are prepared to reconcile the positions they have taken up to now.

That means a compromise. Some people tell me compromise is a horrible English habit; however, some might learn from it to their own advantage in the world. But we can both help, and are ready to do so, for example by financial aid to help settle the tragic refugee problem and by a guarantee of the frontiers once agreed.
Meanwhile, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we, the United States and France have our responsibilities under the tripartite declaration of 1950. We arranged for discussions on the action to be taken to meet an emergency should it arise. The French government has agreed to join us in this. Personally I am convinced that to make ready in this way is to reduce the risk of conflict. It may also be, Mr. Speaker, that a strengthening of the United Nations truce supervisory organization would assist to prevent incidents. Both the United Kingdom and the United States governments are very ready to agree to this. But of course we should wish to be guided by General Burns, a brave Canadian soldier who is resolutely carrying out this thankless task.
As regards the dispute which we have with Saudi Arabia, our position is this. We are not prepared to return to arbitration. There can be no question of that in view of our recent experiences with their bribery and corruption. On the other hand, as we made clear in Washington, we are ready to enter into direct discussions.
The United States government has declared its solid support for the Baghdad pact, to which we belong. This again we welcome and here again our views are alike. The pact has economic purposes and aims which fully match its military provisions and importance. We have considered the kind of help which each member country needs and we are determined to make a success of the pact.
All this does not exclude some help to other countries in the area. An example is Jordan, to whom we shall continue to make substantial payments under our treaty.
So much then for what is perhaps the most critical region at the present time. Of course, we talked of many other problems, in many parts of the world, just as I had the privilege to do with the Prime Minister and your cabinet this morning. We discussed the declaration of Washington which the President and I issued together. In this we set forth the true principles which guide the free world. Some say that these have been stated before. Maybe, but it does no harm to state them again in a manner which makes it clear that we are aware of the modern communist challenge. The declaration of Washington is, in fact, a charter to which the whole of the free world can subscribe. I am sure that here in 67509-58J
Address by Sir Anthony Eden Canada you will agree with its purpose. It is in the tradition of the work you have done so well to unite the countries on either side of the Atlantic in defence of the free world.
Mr. Speakers, I now come back to our own friendship and the work of our two peoples together. Many speakers and writers have tried to define the commonwealth. None has really succeeded, for the reason no doubt that the spirit which gives it life is indefinable.
In a few months' time I look forward to welcoming the prime ministers of the commonwealth to our London meeting. Foremost amongst them is your own Prime Minister, wisest of counsellors and most loyal of friends. May I here suggest that though we enjoy being the hosts to all these meetings of prime ministers, it would be good if from time to time the meeting place were to revolve.
Mr. Speakers, I am here this afternoon surrounded by the familiar setting of our own House of Commons. This morning, Mr. Prime Minister, you were good enough to invite me and my colleague the foreign secretary to attend the Canadian cabinet. Our systems, our modes of thought, our traditions and our ways of life are all so much alike that perhaps we ought not to take too much credit to ourselves, but Anglo-Canadian relations are a model to the world.
But there is more to it than all this. The pervading influence which the commonwealth carries into the four corners of the earth is one of understanding among friends, of tolerance and of peace.
In all this work Canada now plays a leading part. It is impossible to travel, as I had to do as foreign secretary until a year ago, into so many lands without constantly hearing warm praise of the judgment and kindly help you have so often extended to "less happier lands". The service that you are rendering in Indo-China is but one example of the world's debt to you. By this action alone you made possible an armistice which may yet become a peace.
Mr. Speakers, if I may conclude on a slightly more familiar note, I have from my childhood, like many of you, seen this great nation grow up into a position where its authority is among the foremost in the world. I have no doubt of what the future holds. You will be called upon to carry ever more burdensome responsibilities, but they go with authority. That is inescapable. Yet ever so at home and over the world at large there is great comfort in that thought, for I have no doubt that the guidance and wisdom of Canada will always be thrown in the scales on the side of toleration and peace.
908	HOUSE OF
Visit of Sir Anthony Eden
It is not given to many of us to look far into the future, but of this no one who observes your country from outside can doubt a future, an almost unimaginably great future, is in your hands. I have no doubt that you will fashion it in a manner worthy of a great people.
And so, Mr. Speakers, I salute this Canada which commands the future as probably no other land in the world today. I salute you also as the standard bearer of loyalty and a herald of good will. And I wish you well.


Hon. Wishart  McL. Robertson@Speaker of the Senate: On behalf of the Senate of Canada may I say to you, Mr. Prime Minister, how greatly we appreciate your visit to Canada, your courtesy in meeting with us and, on their behalf, may I thank you for the address you have just delivered.
We will never forget the gigantic effort and sacrifice that the people of the United Kingdom made in the cause of freedom; their contribution in the rebuilding of a war-torn world and their efforts in building a better future.
The attendant circumstances of your visit, Mr. Prime Minister, are evidence of the leadership you are continuing to show in this respect. I need hardly say that in the peculiar position Canada occupies in relation in particular to the United Kingdom and the United States and, in general, to the other countries that are signatories to the North Atlantic treaty, we welcome every effort that is made towards greater understanding and in the achieving of a common viewpoint. Your very presence here and in Washington is evidence that you are keenly alive to the inestimable value of personal contacts in helping to attain these ends.
We would particularly ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, to convey our greetings to the members of the United Kingdom parliament. We hold them in the greatest respect, but we see far too little of each other. If it were possible to develop something more of the personal relationship and understanding between the members of our respective legislatures that already exist and are being constantly developed between the executive and administrative branches of government, not only would the attendant benefit be inestimable but it is quite possible that the difficulties of those whose responsibility it is to initiate policies might be lessened accordingly.
We wish you well in your undertakings. May divine Providence bless your endeavours.


Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Honoured guests, Mr. Prime Minister, hon. members of the Senate,

hon. members of the House of Commons, ladies and gentlemen:
(Translation) :
Once a well-known American writer, Nicholas Murray Butler, pointing out the multitudinous problems peculiar to the twentieth century, stressed the high ability required of the men called upon to solve those problems. Then again, another distinguished American author, Whittier, said: "Each crisis brings its words and deeds".
These words naturally come to mind at this time when it is my very great privilege to thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for your interesting speech and your kindly presence among us. May I be allowed to add that the success of your career arouses in us the deepest admiration.
I should fear to lapse into the commonplace in repeating that Sir Anthony Eden, "the specialist in foreign affairs, the virtuoso of diplomacy", to use the words of his biographer, Campbell-Johnson, is a statesman of the highest intellectual standing who has always shown supreme ability and understanding in tackling the most difficult international problems.
At the general elections, in 1950, he summed up his political creed by referring to the theory of the three unities; first, the unity that should exist within the commonwealth; second, the unity of western Europe; and third, the unity which, across the Atlantic, binds England to the United States. Today he has restated his political faith in those three unities and has added two others which are most important and inseparable from the first three.
We believe, as he does, in maintaining a friendly solidarity between the countries which make up the commonwealth.
For us, who are French-speaking and whose mother country was France, we cannot forget, sir, that you have always been a friend of that great nation, that you have, on many occasions, revived the principles that made a success of the Entente Cordiale. You have always believed that the solidarity of Anglo-French relations, nay of western European relations, was the very basis of relations between all western European countries, not only for the present but also for the future.
There are, of course, "other places under the sun" and, as a North American people, we rejoice at your relations with the United States. On the occasion of your visit to America in 1943, President Roosevelt was able to say that you both seemed to agree on approximately ninety-five per cent of the

problems, which is a remarkable proportion. And in the last few days, you and the present President of the United States have just agreed one hundred per cent on the definition of the philosophy behind our way of life, as you personally chose to call it, a definition which was incorporated in this henceforth memorable document, the declaration of Washington.
This is consistent with the objective which is yours today and which you set yourself a long time ago when you said in the House of Commons:
I am convinced that a closer understanding between our nation and the United States constitutes the most important objective that the government of that country could propose to us.
Visit of Sir Anthony Eden
In addition you have accomplished a tour de force, as it were, in bringing about an effective rapprochement with new Germany.
As I said just now, each crisis brings its words and deeds, and brings forth the indispensable men whose courage and logic carry ideals into the realm of reality.
(Text) :
Each crisis brings its words and deeds; it' brings also to the fore the men to utter those words and to do those deeds, and men with sufficient courage and consistency to translate their ideals into realities. Of such a breed is our honoured guest today.
So, in the name of the House of Commons and of the Canadian people, may I say to you, sir: Thank you and good luck!

Tuesday, February 7, 1956


SIR ANTHONY EDEN
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move, seconded by the honourable the Leader of the Opposition:
That the address of the Right Honourable Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, delivered before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons of Canada in the chamber of the House of Commons on February 6, 1956, together with introductory and related speeches, be included in the House of Commons debates and form part of the permanent records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Walter Edward Harris: for leave to introduce Bill No. 51, to amend the Small Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


INCOME TAX ACT
Edmund Davie Fulton: for leave to introduce Bill No. 52, to amend the Income Tax Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: The purpose of this bill is to reduce the time within which the department can reopen an assessment from six years to three years, except in the case of fraud or wilful misrepresentation.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NORTHERN ONTARIO PIPE LINE CORPORATION
Clarence Decatur Howe: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the
following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the constitution of the corporation to be known as the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation for the purposes, inter alia, of constructing, maintaining and operating a natural gas pipe line between the Ontario-Manitoba border and Kapuskasing, Ontario and of leasing, with an option to purchase, the said natural gas pipe line to the Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited and carrying out such leases, including the disposal by the corporation of the said pipe line in connection with such purchase option;
To provide also that the corporation may do such things as are conducive to the attainment of these purposes, that it may borrow money, the aggregate of the amounts borrowed by the corporation and outstanding at any time and the aggregate of the amounts loaned by the Minister of Finance and outstanding at any time not to exceed one hundred and thirty million dollars;
To provide further for the appointment and remuneration of directors, officers and employees incidental to the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all communications exchanged between the government of Canada and the government of the United States from January 1, 1955 to December 31, 1955, relating to the United States wheat disposal program.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, at an earlier sitting I stated that it was not in the public interest to produce the correspondence referred to in this resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


CASH ADVANCES ON FARM-STORED GRAIN.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all resolutions supporting the demand for cash advances on farm-stored wheat which have been received from western farm organizations and other public bodies, by the Prime Minister and any of the ministers of the government, or officials of the government, since the 15th day of August, 1955.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 18-Mr. Knowles:
For a copy of all communications received by any federal cabinet minister, dated at any time since December 1, 1955, with reference to lay-offs at Bristol Aircraft Limited, at Winnipeg, and for a copy of all replies thereto.
[Stage Direction]
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and/or any other communications exchanged between the government or any department thereof, and Trans-Canada Pipe Lines Limited, from January 1, 1S55, to date.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 20-Mr. Zaplitny:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and/or any other communications exchanged between the government, or any department thereof, and the government of Ontario, or any department thereof, from January 1, 1955, to date, with respect to the proposed construction of a gas pipe line across northern Ontario.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would request that this motion be dropped, in view of the motion that was passed the other day in the name of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), and which asked for the same information.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


FLOOD DAMAGE, SASKATCHEWAN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. McCullough (Moose
Mountain):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the federal government or any department thereof and the premier of Saskatchewan or any [DOT] department of the Saskatchewan government, from June 1, 1955 to date, in respect to flood damage in Saskatchewan during 1955.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Before the order is complied with, Mr. Speaker, we will notify the government of Saskatchewan that the house desires the production of these documents.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried subject to the observations made by the Prime Minister.
now before the Exchequer Court of Canada. The matter is sub judice. The second case involves the anthracite property. There are eight owners and the case of one of the owners is before the Exchequer Court of Canada. It is considered to be a test case. Consequently the whole subject matter is before the courts. I submit that according to Beauchesne, third edition, citation 295, the documents should not be produced. Moreover, it is not in the public interest to produce them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Anyway, you do not want to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances shall this motion be dropped?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Dropped.


EXPORT PERMITS FOR MUNITIONS TO EGYPT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 24-Mr. Diefenbaker:
For a copy of all export permits covering noncompetitive shipments of aircraft, aircraft parts or other munitions to Egypt, which have been issued since the 15th of June, 1955.
Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, the subject matter of this resolution is covered by a statement which appears at page 832 of Hansard, under the heading "Statement as to Secrecy of Export Permits".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call for the yeas and nays on this matter, because we do not accept the explanation.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those who are opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


BANFF NATIONAL PARK-TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 23-Mr. Johnston (Bow River):
For a copy of all correspondence and other [DOT]documents exchanged between the Department of .Northern Affairs and National Resources and the Department of Public Works and any person or persons, during the past three years, regarding the expropriation of property in the Banff national park for the construction of the trans-Canada highway.
Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, this motion relates to documents and correspondence with regard to two properties in the Banff national park. The first one is the Wheatley property. Expropriation proceedings in that case are 
And more than five members having risen: Mr. Speaker: Call in the members.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, this is probably another occasion where you will be asked to call for the yeas and nays. This motion is repeating the request which was made orally on Thursday by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew), as reported on page 787 of Hansard. At that time I explained why we felt the request could not be complied with. It now comes forward in the form of a motion for an order for return which we cannot accept.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, just so that we will understand the situation, are we to take it that there is a ministerial order but that it is the policy of the government not to produce it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was a ministerial decision; I do not know whether it should be called an order.


George Alexander Drew: That is what it was called.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It was called an order, but I would not want the hon. gentleman to get the impression from my answer that it was a formal order recorded in the council minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that there is agreement as to the dropping of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.

Motions for Papers


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
++NAYS
Messrs:
Anderson	Cloutier
Applewhaite	Crestohl
Ashbourne	Dechene
Balcom	Decore
Batten	Denis
Benidickson	Deschatelets
Bennett	Deslieres
Bertrand	Dumas
Blanchette	Dupuis
Bonnier	Enfield
Bourget	Eyre
Breton	Fairey
Brisson	Follwell
Brown (Brantford)	Forgie
Brown (Essex West)	Fraser (St. John's East)
Bruneau	Gardiner
Buchanan	Garson
Byrne	Gauthier (Lake St. John)
Cameron (High Park)	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Campney	Gingras
Cannon	Gingues
Cardiff	Goode
Caron	Gour (Russell)
Carrick	Gourd (Chapleau)
Carter	Gregg
Cavers	Habel

On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Prince Albert asked me this question:
What is the present position in regard to the embargo which the Prime Minister undertook to impose pending the foreign affairs debate on shipments of aircraft and armaments in general to the Middle East? Has the embargo which was imposed been lifted or is it still in effect? What is the position with regard thereto?
My answer was that the embargo had not been lifted and that the matter was then under consideration. It has been considered, and the embargo is now to be lifted at once. The government intends to continue the policy which has been in force of considering each application for military equipment on its merits and ensuring that if permission is granted it shall, in the future as in the past, be for military equipment of a type and quantity which could not provoke an arms race or provide an incentive to

Inquiries of the Ministry
aggression. If the political situation in the and, if no progress is being made, does the area should change in a way which would federal government anticipate taking any make inadvisable any shipments of any kind, measure to effect a settlement? necessary action to refuse applications or	_	_ _
postpone shipments will be taken.	Hon. Milton F. Gregg (Minister of Labour):
This is a dispute that is entirely under Israeli-arab borders-participation by	provincial jurisdiction. The answer to the
Canada in supervisory force	second part of the question is no.
On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government given consideration to any request that Canada supply 500 personnel to an international border supervisory security force for Palestine? If so, has any consideration been given to the transfer of some of the Canadian troops now in West Germany to that international police force to preserve and assure peace in the Middle East?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, there has been no request sent to Canada for a force of that character, and naturally no such consideration has been given in view of the fact that no request has been made.



EXPORT AND IMPORT PERMITS ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: I
should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce what is delaying the tabling of the annual report under the Export and Import Permits Act, which is required to be tabled in the house as soon as practicable after December 31. I am speaking of the report on the operations for the calendar year 1955.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I understood we had some three months to comply with that requirement. I presume the report is taking the ordinary course. I shall make inquiries and see whether it can be speeded up.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the minister aware that last year the report for the calendar year 1954 was tabled in the house at an earlier date than this?



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  C. E. Johnsion@Bow River: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Would the minister tell the house what progress is being made toward a settlement of the General Motors strike at Oshawa



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. The question is prompted by an advertisement in the Ottawa Journal of February 3-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -which reads:
Canadair, guided missiles department, has an immediate opening for an electronics engineer.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The question is, what guided missiles are being made at Canadair and for whom are they being manufactured?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Any work on guided missiles in Canadair is undoubtedly for the Canadian government. I do not know that I wish to name the weapon at the moment, although I will make inquiries and see whether I can do so on another occasion.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hugh Alexander Bryson: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Why was the discussion on the book "The Age of Mackenzie King" cancelled by the C.B.C.?


James Joseph McCann: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the
C.B.C. about this matter and I am informed that it was not a case of cancelling a program. The C.B.C. reports that, while some consideration was given to the book as a possible subject for a national television network discussion, on consideration it was not thought to be a good basis for such a discussion.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



MINTO ARMOURIES, WINNIPEG-INQUIRY AS TO RECONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Owen C. Trainor: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is it the intention of the government to reconstruct in the near future the Minto armouries in the city of Winnipeg, which were recently damaged by fire?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, the situation is now being reviewed. As of now the intention would be to reconstruct the armouries. They are not entirely destroyed. But until we have a final review of the cost involved, the state of the building, and other relevant factors, I cannot give a final answer.



REFERENCE TO ACCIDENT AT BRAMPTON, ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Cameron Pallett: I should like to
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Is the report correct in the newspapers to the effect that the pilots who were killed at Brampton were practising forced landings?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I am not aware of the circumstances of that unfortunate accident. It is being looked into, but I have no report as yet. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot at the moment answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: They were using Chipmunks, too.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, on January 31 the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked me whether the recommendations of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission for the 1956 sockeye salmon fishing regulations had been received. I replied that the recommendations had not been received but that when they were received a report would be made to the house.
The recommendations of the international Pacific salmon fisheries commission have now been received in the department and are being studied. The recommendations ask that, for conservation reasons during the 1956 season, the area generally referred to as Juan de


Fuca straits be closed to salmon net fishing from June 28 to August 5 inclusive and that such closure be made effective under authority of the Fisheries Act in so far as Canadian nationals are concerned. The commission has recommended similar action to the government of the United States regarding United States nationals on the American side of Juan de Fuca straits, the regulations to be made effective under the legislation of the state of Washington.
The commission also proposes to prohibit salmon net fishing in outside waters, that is west of a line from Bonilla point to Tatoosh island for both Canadian and American fishermen. This latter regulation is made by the commission itself under the provisions of the international sockeye salmon convention.
The commission's recommendations regarding closure of the Juan de Fuca straits area are being studied by officials of the department and an announcement will be made in due course. Salmon net fishing in the area in question does not normally commence until the latter part of June.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Clyde Nowlan: I wish to direct to the Minister of Transport a question of which I have been unable to send him notice. Has the minister received communications from shippers in western Nova Scotia with respect to the termination of freight service between Yarmouth and Boston? If so, will the minister be prepared to make a recommendation for the continuation of this service for the time being?
Hon.	George	C.	Marler	(Minister	of
Transport): Some representations have been received and are under consideration, but no final decision has been taken.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon.	George	C.	Marler	(Minister	of
Transport): While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to the question asked me last Friday by my friend the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Fraser).
I am informed that the Canadian Bridge Company Limited, who have the contract for erecting the Warsaw road bridge over the Trent canal at Peterborough, have been delayed by a shortage of steel. However, the

steel members have been secured, fabrication is nearing completion, and it is expected that the bridge will be completed about April 20.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether the list of strategic materials the export of which is banned to countries behind the iron curtain is now under consideration? Are any changes in contemplation or have any been discussed with Great Britain or the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The list of strategic materials is revised from time to time by a committee of the NATO organization. I think the last revision took place seven or eight months ago. I have not heard of any further revision since then.



PRIVILEGE


George Alexander Drew: Before the orders of the day are called I rise on a question of privilege. In the edition of Friday, February 3, of the Winnipeg Free Press, on the editorial page, there is an article headed "One Solution Overlooked". From it I shall read a short statement that indicates that serious misinformation has been given to the public without, I am sure, the intention to do so. It reads as follows:
It is a curious fact that so far no party has advocated payment by the wheat board on the farms-that is, neither lending nor advancing money but making a partial payment on the farm.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Alexander Drew: Then it goes on later to state this:
The Conservative party favours loans as of right through the wheat board.
And again this statement is made:
The loans or advances proposed alike by the Liberal, Conservative and C.C.F. parties would be repayable by farmers in cash.
Mr. Speaker, that statement going out to a large number of readers of this paper gives an impression that is difficult to reconcile with what has been stated clearly and emphatically in this house. I would refer-
Shipment of Arms Abroad


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Leader of the Opposition to point out that in my humble view he cannot, on a question of privilege, debate in this house what appears in the press as their interpretation of what has happened in this house. The debate in this house is one which must take place between members. If the press make their own interpretation of what has been said or of what has taken place in this house and we then proceed further to debate the matter with them, I think we are departing from the rules of the house.


George Alexander Drew: Your Honour, I was about to follow a practice that has been followed here on numerous occasions. I was about to read from Hansard in order to show what I had said with regard to this matter, which has been misrepresented to the public. I would ask Your Honour whether I am permitted to quote from Hansard remarks I made in the opening speech I made in the debate on the speech from the throne.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition will understand the position I am taking. If in the editorial there had been a direct quotation relating to the Leader of the Opposition it would be a different proposition. It would have been a misconstruction of his words uttered in this house. But from what he has read, I understand that the editorial is perhaps misunderstanding what has been said. Perhaps they are all wrong, but that is a matter of debate. The Leader of the Opposition should seek another opportunity to debate the matter. He should not rise on a question of privilege in order to argue it out now. Now that he has referred to the matter again, perhaps the newspaper will understand the matter better next time. My point is that I do not think a question of privilege should be raised for the purpose which the Leader of the Opposition has in mind at the moment.


George Alexander Drew: I do not propose to debate the ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is not debatable. I shall avail myself later this week of an opportunity of placing the record properly before the house.


Walter Edward Harris: that the house go into committee of supply.



SHIPMENT OF ARMS ABROAD

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity this session, on going into supply, for

Shipment of Arms Abroad Her Majesty's loyal opposition to raise a matter of importance and draw to the attention of the house a subject which, in the opinion of the opposition, deserves serious consideration.
For the last several weeks we have been considering some matters pertaining to the procedure followed by the government in dealing with the shipment abroad of military equipment, and a number of questions have been asked from time to time in order to obtain information. Some confusion has arisen with regard to the method and procedure followed in the shipment of military equipment from this country, not only in the minds of the members of this house but perhaps across the country, and there may even be some confusion in the minds of some members of the cabinet.
It would be interesting to clear up some of the terms that have been used from time to time in reference to the shipment of arms, ammunition and military equipment, such as orders in council, ministerial orders, ministerial decisions, export permits, and terms of that nature. I intend to move a motion to the effect that this matter be turned over to a committee of the house. At this stage I shall read but will not move the motion which will form the basis for the debate, and on which I hope to base my argument. It reads:
That, in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
The value of suggesting reference to the external affairs committee is that expedition will result from that method of procedure. That committee is well able, from its experience, to deal with a matter of this sort.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but ignorance of government policy and administrative procedures might be used as an excuse for a person's lack of knowledge of what is going on, because government policy is sometimes obscure, sometimes in a state of flux, and sometimes it remains unknown unless intensive investigation is carried on, or some accident occurs.
During the course of the last several weeks we have been endeavouring to obtain information with regard to this matter I have raised. We have uncovered confusion. To every member of this house examples will occur of answers which lead to various interpretations, answers which are only partial replies to the questions asked, and answers which appear not to be answers at all. I propose using as an example three questions
[Mr. Churehill.l
that I asked in the house dealing with three matters concerning which I thought we should have information. My first question is found at page 525 of Hansard. It was addressed to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and referred to mutilated gun barrels and breech blocks. I wanted to know whether those mutilated gun barrels and breech blocks were, if or when they were exported as scrap, beyond repair. Here is the minister's answer:
The instructions to the disposal corporation are that before guns are scrapped, and before they leave the possession of the corporation, the breech blocks are to be demolished. In other words, they are mutilated beyond repair.
That was a reply to half my question. I was much more interested in gun barrels, and to that part of the question no reply has been forthcoming. A mutilated gun barrel, in army parlance, is one which is not beyond repair. When sent to an armourer it can be put back in shape rather quickly. Is there any use in my asking now of the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether or not during the year 1955, or the preceding year, mutilated gun barrels have been exported from Canada as scrap metal? In all probability I would get a reply to the effect that no scrap metal had been shipped from Canada last week, and I would be no further ahead.
My second question concerned the extent of our traffic in arms, ammunition and military supplies. I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs, at page 521 of Hansard, whether or not we had sent any military equipment to any South American country in the last two years. This is the reply of the minister as recorded at page 557 of Hansard:
The answer is, no permits were issued for guns, ammunition, or military weapons of any kind, or for military aircraft or military vehicles to South America.
Does that mean that no military equipment was shipped to South America? Can military equipment be shipped without permits? I am at a loss to know what the answer means. I would place opposite that answer in Hansard the information which I obtained from the dominion bureau of statistics, which shows that during the year 1954, and for the ten months of 1955, military equipment to the amount of $63,980 was shipped to Peru, Ecuador, Uruguay and Venezuela. I took extreme care, and I checked the atlas. I found that after all these years these countries are still in South America. The headings in the dominion bureau of statistics return are: "Guns, rifles and other firearms; cartridges, gun and rifle."

My third question, addressed to the same minister, had reference to the shipment of military equipment to the 34 sensitive areas he had mentioned earlier, with the exception of Israel and Egypt. His reply indicated that $1 million worth of military equipment had gone during the last two years to sensitive areas outside the British commonwealth but he felt unable to give the names of the areas to which that equipment had been sent, although I asked for the names of those areas. It occurs to me that it is possible that a committee sitting in camera would be given that information so the picture would be entirely clear. It is because of answers like that, and because of the even more confusing answers we have heard in response to other questions, that I am suggesting this whole matter be referred to a committee which could seriously attempt to unravel the skein of confusion which prevails with regard to the entire question of exports of arms, ammunition and military equipment.
It seems to me that in matters of this sort the government follows a course of concealment, and when the truth appears to have been discovered it is followed by a denial such as the one which said in effect that no planes had been sent to Egypt and no arms to South America. This is followed by certain grudging admissions when pressed, and if the matter is pursued further it culminates in certain guilty disclosures. At that stage panic sets in and a smoke screen is thrown up to confuse the issue completely, and the fall-out extends from coast to coast. Of course, at that stage it is also customary to blame the opposition for not having raised the question on some other earlier occasion when the matter might have been considered and the information given by the government.
Well, Mr. Speaker, what are we doing about the shipment of arms, ammunition and military equipment overseas? Unless we can bring this matter before a committee and make a diligent search into it we will not know exactly what is being done. We have been told that there is no prohibition concerning shipments to our allies in NATO or to the commonwealth countries, but that there is a prohibition in relation to the Sino-Russian bloc. The question then arises concerning shipments to other countries outside of those areas, and it is with regard to those other countries outside of NATO and the British commonwealth that I was in complete ignorance of the fact that we were engaging in commercial transactions involving arms and general military equipment.
We have had pointed out to us in this rather purple fringe area of activity that
Shipment of Arms Abroad careful steps are taken to prevent any weapons going overseas that should not go, and things of that nature. Even today we were assured by the Prime Minister that in lifting the embargo the government was following the same policy as in the past. If I interpreted his words correctly they were to the effect that military equipment was not being shipped out of Canada to these countries of a nature that would encourage an arms race or be an incentive to aggression.
So we are informed that an elaborate control system has been set up; that such matters have to go before the cabinet and go through a procedure before three cabinet ministers; that various checks are involved that would secure Canada's position. The phrases used such as "consideration at cabinet level", "special care with regard to sensitive areas", "shipments only to defence departments", "assurances against re-export", "estimates of legitimate defence requirements of the receiving countries", "very special care that there is no temptation to commit aggression by the receiving country", indicate a very cautious approach indeed, as if the government realized that it was dealing with something of considerable significance to the people of Canada, as indeed it is.
But does the system work? It is only through an examination by a committee that we can find out whether or not that system does work. There is an escape clause-at least it is a confusing clause or phrase-in some of the information we have been given. The words used were, "shipments of any significance". We are told that such shipments have to go through the procedure that has been outlined. However, the words "any significance" have not been defined. What do they mean? Do they refer to the type of material that has been shipped or to the quantity or the value? We have not been told.
Another interesting question is, who makes the decision as to whether a shipment of military equipment is or is not significant? We are not informed with regard to that aspect of the question either. All arrows point to the minister in charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence also bear some responsibility with regard to this matter.
At this point, in order that we may be reassured the cloak of righteousness is thrown over the shoulders of the cabinet. If only we knew the number of orders that had been received for jet planes and the alacrity with which the cabinet turned down those orders.
886	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Anns Abroad If only we knew the total value of equipment that has been ordered and refused. The government has been tempted and has resisted temptation.
Well, that may be very reassuring to some people but I am not sure whether it will be reassuring to the hon. members of this house. Then we are told that after all no great quantities have been shipped, and also that the weapons that have been shipped are not' modern and dangerous.
Only a committee could find out the facts with regard to the procedure in the shipping of military equipment overseas to those countries outside NATO and the British commonwealth. How can we obtain that information in the house? That subject deserves intensive study.
There is a great danger in thinking that simply because great weapons of massive destruction have been developed over the last several years, weapons of so-called conventional design are not dangerous. It is wrong to think that simply because we are not shipping abroad atom and hydrogen bombs, jet planes, rockets and guided missiles and tanks, that we are shipping weapons that are not dangerous. Thinking in those terms you can reach the point where you think in effect that to kill men by obsolete and conventional weapons is not as objectionable as it is to kill them by modern means of mass destruction. We have it on the word of a person who heretofore has been considered competent to express opinions along those lines, and I would like t'o read the following words to the house:
We hope that atomic weapons will never be used. We also hope that machine guns and howitzers will not be used. The danger is that the uncritical acceptance throughout the world of the reprehensible quality of atomic weapons as such, rather than of violence itself, may lead to an assumption that the use of "conventional" weapons to kill men in order to achieve political objectives is somehow not so objectionable. A man is equally dead if killed by a bullet, an arrow or an atomic blast. It is the use of force that is to be condemned, not the physical source of that force.
Those words come from a book entitled 'Democracy in World Politics" of which I think the author is the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Yet here le would have us believe that conventional weapons such as those we are disposing of are lot modern and dangerous.
I would hope that the committee investigat-ng this subject would consider our method if procedure, and in doing so find out what ;ypes of material were shipped overseas and whether or not we were sending modern and iangerous weapons. The purpose of weapons such as aeroplanes, tanks, guns, machine guns and rifles is to deliver upon the enemy an


explosive charge or a bullet which will destroy or kill. A jet aeroplane without ammunition is not as useful as a helicopter and a tank without ammunition is not as useful to an army as a bulldozer. It is the ammunition which is the important factor along with the weapon.
In the first world war artillery and mortar fire killed thousands of men and machine gun fire killed tens of thousands. Machine guns dominated the battlefield until their power was broken after four years of static warfare by the invention and use of the tank. In the second world war more powerful weapons of destruction were invented and used, but many thousands of men fell before the fire of machine guns and rifles. The V-l and V-2 were used toward the latter part of the war, but their destruction of civilian property and installations was not particularly important from the standpoint of the armies in the field.
Reporting in the latest issue of XJ.S. News and World Report, General Gruenther indicates that even if nuclear weapons are used there will still be need for armies to continue the use of conventional weapons. So how can you say they are not modern and dangerous? Therefore I submit that shipments of ammunition from this country to countries outside of NATO or other than countries which are our allies should be carefully examined. In what way are the permits issued? What controls are exercised to see that this ammunition does not get into the wrong channels?
An examination of the bureau of statistics report shows that in the last eight years Canada has shipped $800,000 worth of ammunition to Central America, the islands of the Caribbean and portions of South America. That would buy millions of rounds for rifles and machine guns. Why has Canada been shipping this type of material to areas which have nothing to do with us from the standpoint of our NATO alliance? What controls are exercised? Why are these shipments made? Is Canada entering into a traffic that represents an arms race and provides an incentive to aggression?
I notice that in 1949 over $20,000 worth of ammunition was shipped to the Dominican Republic. Why should the Dominican Republic want that amount of ammunition? I discovered that at that time that country feared an invasion from some of its neighbours and conferred upon its president full power to declare war. Consequently they needed ammunition. The adjoining neighbours whom they feared were Costa Rica, Panama and Cuba. Following its policy of balancing sides, of providing material to both sides so that

peace would be preserved, we find that Canada shipped about $40,000 of ammunition to those three areas.
Then I notice that in 1951 Cuba received over $100,000 worth of ammunition, and another $50,000 worth in 1952. What purpose was served by these shipments? Who issued the export permits? Were the needs and requirements of this country examined? We are told that extreme care is taken to determine the defensive requirements of a country, to see that the balance is not upset one way or another. What was going wrong in Cuba in 1951? The record shows that in the spring' of 1952 the government of Cuba was overthrown. An officer obtained control of the army, and with all that ammunition handy he was able to unseat the government. At the same time there apparently was no threat from the neighbouring countries, so Canada did not supply a great deal, except the customary $13,000 worth of ammunition to Costa Rica.
Then as my third example let us see what was going on in 1954 in Central America that interested Canada. The record shows that in 1954 Guatemala got over $16,000 worth of ammunition from Canada. In the preceding year they got only $172 worth. That caught my attention and I wondered what in the world had happened in Guatemala. I looked into it and found that things were in a rather disturbed state in that country at that time. In 1953 important positions in the government had come under the control of the communists and in January, February and March of 1954 shipments of arms reached that country from Canada. But the Russians did it on a proper scale. When they play they play for high stakes, and a whole shipload totalling 2,000 tons of military supplies which were loaded at Stettin in Poland, ostensibly headed for Africa, reached Guatemala. Of course then the neighbouring states had to interest themselves in the problem, there was intervention in Guatemala, the government was overthrown and the situation was restored.
In 1954 Canada supplied $25,000 worth of ammunition to Costa Rica, which is not far away, $30,000 odd worth to Cuba and $15,000 worth to Panama. So in the year 1954 we find from the operation of the export permit system of this government that the Canadian government supplied ammunition to a communist controlled government in Guatemala. I think the committee might very well investigate the method by which our ammunition is disposed of.
I would like to ask this question. What is the final disposition of this ammunition? Has it been re-exported? Has it perhaps ended
Shipment of Arms Abroad up in communist hands in Malaya or Indochina? Has it perhaps ended up in the hands of some of the Mau Mau tribesmen of Kenya, or is it now in the hands of Algerian tribesmen? Once ammunition is exported to a world market without any effective control over its re-export, the most disastrous things may happen. It surely is shameful to think-and I hope a committee of inquiry shows otherwise-that perhaps Canadian-manufactured ammunition has fallen into the hands of people who with that ammunition will kill British and Australian troops in Malaya or French legionnaires in Algeria.
Those are some of the reasons I can advance for the need of a committee to examine our method in dealing with these modern and dangerous weapons. Ammunition does not become obsolete. The Hotchkiss, the Lewis, the Vickers, perhaps the Bren, are now considered obsolete and have been superseded by the Browning machine gun, but those same guns in the hands of men who are bent on fighting would be just as effective as they were 20 or 30 years ago, when they were considered modern and dangerous.
Canada has got itself into a very peculiar position with regard to trafficking in arms. The only way we can find out whether or not we are permitting the export of destructive weapons is by an investigation. An investigation would show whether our tinkering with military supplies to countries that are not our allies and are not engaged in assisting us against the one major opponent is not likely to do more to foment trouble and strife rather than to maintain peace.
What in the world has happened to the millions of rounds of ammunition sent down to Central America, the Caribbean and South America? Who knows now where that has gone? Perhaps it has made its way over to the sensitive area in the Middle East or some other sensitive area. Then what is going to be the outcome of this reckless disregard, as it appears to me, in handling that type of equipment? In the final analysis, trouble will break out somewhere and Canadian troops will be required to take some action. That is what may happen, and by all means we should resist and oppose anything like that happening.
We can only check the danger by a thorough investigation here in the House of Commons. We cannot do it by questions and answers on the orders of the day. That has been proven over the past three weeks. We can do it only by a thorough investigation. Such an investigation, laying before the committee and finally before the house the facts of the matter, will give us an indication as

Shipment of Arms Abroad,
to whether or not there has been any properly controlled policy or method of procedure on the part of the government. At the moment I think that the matter is completely out of control, and I think dollars have been the consideration.
I do not know how the moral aspect of it could be investigated, but we have had a new moral principle brought forward for our attention, to the effect that if a number of larger nations ship arms to an area where there is tension, it is not morally wrong for Canada to do so as well. That would be a nice question for our moral philosophers to deal with. Right or wrong is not to be determined by the morals involved but by numbers. It is an exercise in numerology. If we are not going to indulge in an arms race or permit other countries to engage in an arms race, as the Prime Minister pointed out today, how do we prevent it? How do we balance arms and ammunition against arms and ammunition? Do five hundred guns equal 500 guns? How many anti-aircraft guns equal one airplane? That is an impossible basis. There are so many other factors that have to be considered; the supply of ammunition, in which Canada is very active, the training of troops, leadership and morale.
In playing this game we are like children in a kindergarten piling up building blocks to see how high we can get them before they topple over. In supplying arms to both sides, Canada has got itself into a very awkward position, and only a thorough investigation by a committee of this house would determine whether or not the method of procedure of the government is sound and proper.
I see it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I be allowed to tell the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and those who will follow him in the discussion of the amendment he announced earlier that there appears to me, judging by the tenor of his arguments and the words used in his speech today, a very close relationship to the debate that took place not very long ago on a motion of want of confidence, moved when the debate on external affairs was arranged. He does not come to the same conclusion by his amendment, but perhaps we might have a debate which is not so repetitious of the one that took place the other day if arguments were directed more closely to the purport of the amendment he intends to move, and about which he spoke earlier.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to bring my remarks to a conclusion in a very few minutes. Before the dinner hour I was dealing with the subject of the shipment from Canada of arms, ammunition and military equipment generally. I questioned the effectiveness of the present system of export permits in controlling those shipments. I gave just a few examples. The amounts of money involved are small in relation to the cost of airplanes and tanks. I was dealing with the cost of ammunition. Ammunition is cheap, but it is ammunition that kills.
To those who are impressed by size, let me say that a battalion of infantry attempting to cross 400 or 500 yards of open ground against a battery of 25-pounder or 105 millimetre guns-and those are terribly destructive weapons of war of great size-would have a greater chance of surviving and reaching its objective than if crossing the open ground against four machine guns properly sighted for cross-fire and firing small ammunition. Under our present system of export permits we are placing millions of rounds of small arms ammunition in the hands of men here and there throughout the world in order that they may kill each other.
I have urged that for the purpose of securing the necessary information in order that the house may make a decision, the whole matter should be referred to a committee. This is a method to which I am sure there is no objection, and the government may wish to adopt the suggestion in order that full information may be made available to the public. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words after the word "That" and substituting therefor the following:
"in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that I am going to support the amendment, because I feel that after the discussions that have taken place in the house over the last few weeks there is considerable uneasiness in various parts of the country with respect to Canada's exports of munitions of war.
I am not suggesting that at the present time Canada is fomenting trouble anywhere in the world. That, I think, is not the intention either of the mover of the amendment or his

party. But I think it is wise that the house and the country should understand the procedures involved in the issue of permits for the export of munitions. We know very well that permits are not required for the export of war material to our allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Nor, I take it, is it the intention of the mover that we shall divulge to what extent we are supporting our sister nations of the commonwealth in the securing of the necessary arms and so on in order to defend themselves and our way of life if they or that way of life should be attacked.
But over the last few weeks we have had considerable discussion in the house, and many questions have been asked, regarding the export of airplanes, ammunition and guns by permit through private organizations. I have a very vivid recollection over the years of discussions in the house and throughout the country regarding the activities of these private companies. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I think they are no more scrupulous in their activities today than they were in days gone by when they were so frequently called, as they were the other evening by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes), merchants of death.
I have noticed some of their activities in our own country over the last year or two. I was very annoyed, for example, by a photograph that appeared as an advertisement by Canadair in Time magazine, other magazines and some of the newspapers of this country. It so happens that I am a member of the church which was photographed and used in the advertisement. It is one of the largest churches of my denomination in the city of Ottawa. I refer to St. Matthew's church. The photograph in the advertisement showed a few people scattered throughout the church, and the implication was that we were not prepared either spiritually or through armaments to defend our way of life against communism. In fact that was the tenor of the advertising around the picture of this particular church and its interior.
The story of the photograph is rather interesting. Canadair secured the services of a well-known photographer. The church authorities did not know why the photograph was going to be taken. Canadair got about 20 elderly people from one of the homes in the city, took them to the church scattered them throughout the church so as to make it appear that the church was habitually empty when people were called to worship there. Yet I can testify-


William Earl Rowe: On a week day?
Shipment of Arms Abroad


Major James William Coldwell: On a week day-that St. Matthew's church probably is one of the best attended churches in the city. If you go there on Sunday morning, as I hope some of you may do on occasion, you will find that the pews are full. Yet the advertising around the photograph conveyed the impression that this was one of the empty churches of today and referred to the danger of communism because our people were not paying sufficient attention to their spiritual obligations.


Walter Edward Harris: When did this occur?


Major James William Coldwell: Last spring; and the advertising appeared in the autumn of last year. The church is St. Matthew's church in this city.


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was probably charged up to the public, too.


Major James William Coldwell: I may say I know very well what happened, because I am a member of that congregation. Here you have Canadair urging the production of war machines, planes and so on, advertising through the medium of the newspapers, Time and other magazines, and publishing what is in effect a false impression of what is actually the case so far as our churches are concerned. Nothing is sacred for some of these munition makers.
There we find an indication of precisely the kind of thing they will do. Consequently I think that in these times, when these people are finding it extremely profitable indeed to make munitions of war both for our own government and to send overseas, we should understand exactly how these munitions of war are allowed to be sent out of Canada. Indeed, I would go further and say that the amendment contains an extremely valuable suggestion. I say that for this reason. How many members of this House of Commons know precisely what is done with the large appropriations of money that we make for the provision of munitions of war for this country?
I have often felt that there is one aspect of our expenditures about which members of parliament know nothing. I refer to the expenditures that are made by the Department of National Defence for munitions of war. I am not for one moment indicating that in times like these we should not look to our defence. I am not for one moment saying that in times like these we are not obliged to see to it that we have the best possible equipment with which to defend ourselves and with which, if necessary, to assist our allies in the same cause in our joint defence. But I am saying that we should know precisely what is being done. I am saying that we should know what these

Shipment of Arms Abroad corporations-which are private corporations, and which get permits in order to export munitions of war-are doing, where they are sending their munitions, how they obtain these permits and what happens to be the manner of granting them.
I am therefore going to support this suggestion. It does not encompass very much. For example, it cannot be said that this amendment in any way embraces the kind of problem that we were discussing in connection with external affairs a week ago. It is much narrower than that. But it would give members of parliament, through the external affairs committee, an opportunity of making an inquiry into how these orders are being placed, and how these permits are being issued; and perchance we might widen that inquiry and find out how these munitions of war are being paid for. We should then be in better circumstances to understand some of the factors that enter into this great private industry.
As I say, we have built up in this country some powerful industries. I mentioned Canadair. As a matter of fact, Canadair is a creature of our own parliament. We laid the foundations of it. There are in our own country other organizations of the same sort to which, during the war, we provided valuable plants and facilities or to which, when the war was over, the plants and facilities that we had built up .in order to win a great war were handed with little return to Canada, and today they are unfortunately the basis of an extremely profitable industry.
I am not going to elaborate, because the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre went into the matter quite fully from his point of view and gave some reasons why this amendment has been moved. All I want to do tonight is just say to the house that here we have a proposal that will enable members of parliament to inquire into the export of munitions from this country; will give members of parliament an opportunity to understand how permits are issued; will give us a more comprehensive view of where some of these munitions have gone in the past; and will enable that committee to recommend to this parliament-not to the government-ways and means of exercising a greater measure of control.
As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre stated this afternoon, none of us knows to what extent the ammunition that was sent, for example, to South America has found its way to some other quarters. We do not know that. We do not know just where some of the munitions go after they leave this country. We should have a thorough understanding of

what this involves. Of one thing I am quite sure. Neither the government or any member of it nor any member of this parliament wishes to provide any aggressive force with the means of making a war that might spread and involve all of us in it.
It was with considerable heartburning, Mr. Speaker, that last week I voted for the amendment that was moved by the official opposition, because I saw that we perhaps might be denying to one side munitions of war that the other side was getting from another source. I saw that. Yet at the same time I could not bring myself to accept the wide open exportation in which the government has been engaged over the last period of time, sending munitions of war into an area which was explosive

and to both sides.
I am not going to detain the house any longer, Mr. Speaker, except to say this. I have not had a chance to discuss the matter with my colleagues yet, but I am going to vote for the amendment as I suspect they will, too, because I believe it has some merit. I hope that we shall not have to vote on it. I should like to see the government say that they accept this proposal, and that they are prepared to send the matter to the external affairs committee and let its members investigate it fully.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I am rather pleased that such an amendment as this has been presented in the house this evening, because it gives us a further opportunity to suggest a way by which this parliament and the Canadian people can become a little bit more satisfied that things are being done properly within some of the departments of government. There is no doubt that considerable confusion existed in the attempt the government made to answer a question some days ago.
I need not now recapitulate the events to which I refer. We all recognize the fact that a question was answered, that the answer had to be modified and corrected, and that eventually another answer came down after several of the departments had got together. It therefore occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that there is just not enough co-ordination between certain departments of government. Perhaps they are not interrelated quite enough to carry on to the satisfaction of parliament the work of the country and the particular work affecting those departments. Perhaps there is an explanation of it.
Frankly, in some respects I have never been able to determine where the responsibility of one department ends and that of another department begins. Here I make reference to four separate departments of

government. We have the Department of External Affairs which deals with the relationships between this government and the governments of other countries on, shall we say, the diplomatic level. Then we have the Department of National Defence which has to do with the three branches of our forces and their relationship to other countries, wherever that relationship becomes involved. Then we have the Department of Defence Production, the responsibility of which is to see that-I was going to say war equipment- munitions and supplies are ordered, manufactured and delivered. Then we have the Department of Trade and Commerce, which strikes agreements with other countries.
It seems to me those four departments should be more correlated when it comes to the exports of munitions of war, because that is what they are. We can use the term "defence" all we like, so far as we in Canada are concerned we trust that those munitions will be used for the defence of our country. Nevertheless, if they are used, they will be used because there is war.
I say once again I do believe there is not enough co-ordination of these departments. If there had been, the confusion would not have arisen and would not have existed, and the answers to those questions would not have been brought down in the way they were. One of the questions was a very simple one. It was whether or not Harvard planes had been shipped to Egypt. It should not have taken very much investigation to answer that question adequately.
I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we must give some little leeway in answers which are not just at the fingertips of the ministers when the questions are asked. I think we all appreciate your magnanimous view of that question period which takes place before entering on the orders of the day. Sometimes we spend as much as an hour asking the ministers questions during that period. It is an admirable thing, and I am not going to blame the ministers too harshly if they are not too fully informed of all the details when questions are fired across the floor of the house. They have no notes and have to trust to their memories.
I recognize that some of those departments of government are huge. All you have to do is to open a departmental telephone book and see how many telephones there are reaching out all over the city of Ottawa in connection with perhaps one department. They are huge departments employing vast numbers of people, and the minister is bound to rely upon some of his deputies and understudies for his information.
Shipment of Arms Abroad
It is reasonable to suggest that in the end the government determines certain policies, and the minister relies upon his staff or his deputy to pursue the administration of the department in order to accomplish certain things within the policy which had been laid down. Therefore I am not going to be too harsh if the ministers do not immediately have at the tips of their tongues or the ends of their fingers all the details of the answers. But there is a way in which that can be handled. All the ministers have to do, as they often do, is rise and say that they are not acquainted with the answer at the time and that they will have to get some information on it, but they will see that the member asking the question gets the answer tomorrow. They have many experts and large staffs. Some of us wish we had some of them. It should not be too much to expect a minister to be able to supply us with a complete answer within 24 or 48 hours.
While I would be in favour of the amendment-and I think most of my colleagues in this corner of the house would be also-I do not know that I am altogether in favour of the speech made by the hon. gentleman who introduced it. I do not know, but to me the speech savoured a little of isolationist policy. Perhaps that will be denied, but that is all right; I will not make too much of it. I say now, I do not believe we can afford to be isolationists in the world in which we are living. That is one reason why this group voted against the two amendments that were proposed the other day on the shipment of armaments to the sensitive area in the Middle East.
Right here might I just interject and express a thought with respect to the advertisement to which the leader of the C.C.F., the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), referred. I read that advertisement after it was drawn to my attention. There is no doubt about it, there was reference to munitions of defence. I do believe, however, many people read that advertisement and perhaps concluded that it was a good one. The reference to armaments was not too pronounced.


Major James William Coldwell: Was the picture not a lie?


Ernest George Hansell: I am coming to that. I am not now supporting the advertisement, but we should use well balanced judgment, because I doubt very much whether people's attention would have been drawn to it had the hon. member not mentioned it. There are a good many people who would read that advertisement and would say it was a good one. They would say, here is an advertisement which tells us to place a little more

Shipment of Arms Abroad dependence upon spiritual power than upon the power of arms. There are many people who would read it with that in mind.
As far as the church building is concerned, there was no mention of what building it was. To look at it you would think perhaps it was a fashionable church in New York city, and that very few people attended it. That is about the way you would look at it. I do not know the wisdom of mentioning what particular church it was. I agree with the hon. member that in this particular church they probably have a large congregation. While I am not an Anglican myself, I dodge around the city and I have been in that church. There was a good congregation when I was there. In fact, I must say that if you go to church on Sunday morning in Ottawa you will find the churches pretty well all filled.
However, there is that point there. People would get this from the advertisement, that we should depend on spiritual power more than we do, instead of relying on the force of arms. I mention that only in passing.
I said we in this party were not isolationists. That is why we voted against the amendments the other day. The world today is a very small world indeed, much smaller than it was a decade or a generation ago. We have only to read about supersonic jet propelled planes encircling the globe in a few hours in order to begin to realize how small the world really is. We are approaching a stage wherein no nation lives unto itself and we cannot ignore the fact that what happens to our neighbours-we are all neighbours in this world-is of very real concern to us.
Palestine, or to boil it down the state of Israel, is only a small piece of land. I believe there are farmers living in my own constituency who own and farm as much land as the total area of the state of Israel.


Major James William Coldwell: The total agricultural area, certainly.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, certainly. If a series of jet bombers were to strafe that country, they could do it within two or three minutes; it would not even take an hour. One might say that the state of Israel is an extremely sensitive area and arms should not be shipped there, but the argument can be used the other way. It is sensitive enough that this government should pay particular attention in respect of shipments to this area. It is not the withdrawal of arms from those areas that should concern the government but shipments of arms to those areas in order to stop any possible aggression.
If my information is correct, some of the iron curtain countries are shipping a great


many armaments into the Arab states, perhaps to Egypt in particular at this time. Indeed that is a sensitive area. Perhaps if we knew the whole truth we would say that the government should pay a little more attention to shipping armaments there; I do not know. I do not like to be interpreted at this time as suggesting a lot of arms shipments; nevertheless the world today is in such a state of uncertainty that all governments bear a responsibility in this respect. Might I say too that I have no brief for this government. I think it is-


Walter Edward Harris: Pretty good?


Ernest George Hansell: No, I do not think it is pretty good or we would not be out to try to unseat it. However, I am suggesting that if an outbreak of some magnitude should take place in the Middle East; if it should be revealed that one of the countries involved had called upon Canada for armaments and Canada, let us suppose, had refused to ship them, the very people who moved these amendments the other day would be among the first to criticize the government.


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Too little and too late.


Ernest George Hansell: I say that because, after all, governments have responsibilities and they must take the consequences of their decisions too. Therefore I say I am not too critical of the government on that particular score. However, in talking about the responsibilities of government I would venture to say, and I do so with some modification, that I do not know just how far an opposition in parliament should exert itself in telling the government how it should do something. As I have said, I make that statement with some degree of modification, and the reason is this. Over the years I have heard the government say, although not in so many words, "Well, how would you do it?" Any government that has to come to our party and ask how we would do it had better move over, let us assume control and show them how to do it.


An hon. Member:: You are not kidding.


Ernest George Hansell: I am not convinced that we in the opposition should tell this government what to do; and when the government ask us how we would do it my answer is, "Well, why ask us? If you have to ask us, then you do not know how to do it."


J.-Wilfrid Dufresne: Tell them where to go.


Ernest George Hansell: The government has a responsibility. Parties go out at election time and place their platforms before the people. They bid for power to run the country. When the people have put them into office then the

responsibility of the government is to deliver the goods. Our responsibility is not now to tell the government how to do its job. As voices of the people our responsibility here, whether on this side of the house or on the government side, is to severely criticize the government if it does not accomplish the thing it was elected to do.
Let me deal with this matter of exports of munitions of war. I agree with what has been said in this respect, that no one can tell the ultimate destination of these munitions whether they be actual war machinery or ammunition. No one can tell the ultimate destination to which they may go. I do not know what might be involved in these agreements that are signed between Canada and other nations, but we do know that previous to the last war a great deal of scrap iron was sold to countries which became our enemies. In fact I was once told that certain shells were fired at our Canadian boys, blowing them into eternity; and when our boys went over and captured the enemy territory they found the following words indented on the shells, "Made in-" and it was the name of one of the allied countries. That is something which to me is an eternal tragedy, that munitions of war manufactured in this country might be used against our own forces. That is what happened in the last war. That is what happened when our scrap iron was sent to Japan. This subject was brought up in this house over and over again in debates held during the last war.
There is another point which I should like to place before you, Mr. Speaker, which makes this motion commendable. At this time we hear a lot of talk concerning strategic materials going to other countries, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned it this afternoon. I have never been able to determine what that means. What are strategic materials? I do not know, but I think we should know. I believe that one thing this proposed committee could very well do would be to demand to know exactly what constitutes strategic materials. Even foodstuffs could be strategic materials under certain given conditions.
There is another point I should like to make. I do not know whether this motion will pass; I do not know whether the government will be magnanimous enough to say, "Yes, we want to lay our cards on the table," but even at that I do not think we can expect to discover a great deal. I will tell you why. During the war years we set up the war expenditures committee, and for one session I happened to be a member of that committee. Its work was of such a nature that it continued during the recess, and many of us
Shipment of Arms Abroad came back in the fall to continue our work even though parliament was not actually sitting.
We went into all sorts of things, contracts and one thing and another. We asked all the questions we wanted to ask. But hidden away in the estimates were items covering the expenditure of money to be used in the development of the atom bomb, and not one single member of parliament discovered them. That indicated pretty good work on the part of someone in keeping the secret. I do not believe any of us want to reveal such items as that, as we should be well balanced in our thinking. I agree that you cannot reveal to the enemy all you are doing, but this motion does not call for that.
All that is asked is that there be revealed to parliament the process by which this whole business of the export of munitions of war is carried on. That is really all it asks for. I would regard it as a sort of procedural motion, not as a want of confidence motion. It indicates a desire on the part of parliament to ask the government to put down its cards face up in respect to the process by which this whole business of the export of munitions of defence or of war to the rest of the world goes on.
I submit that is something we have a right to know. After all, we represent the people, and it is only through us that these demands can be made. It is only through members of parliament that these results can be obtained. The people cannot get them. How on earth can they get them? If they came to the government and wanted to know, would the government tell them? I do not think they would. They would regard it as something they should not reveal in that way. But members of parliament have the right to know the way these things are done.
That is all we are asking for, to be told the method by which it is done so we can come up with suggestions that may help the government. There could be no harm in that. If the government contend that possible recommendations are not as good as the practice they are following, they can scrap them. There is nothing mandatory about it. I should imagine the government would want to say, "If a committee can recommend a better way of doing this, then let us have it." That is the way I look upon the amendment, and for that reason we are going to vote for it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, this problem of the control of armaments is certainly not new. It is something which has persisted all through history. I remember reading of the old days when the gentlemen of France objected to the use of
894	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad the crossbow by the English because it was an indecent weapon which resulted in the gentlemen getting killed. They suggested that the crossbow be abolished. Later on a similar objection was taken to the use of powder and guns. It was contended that they were indecent weapons which constituted a threat to chivalry, and therefore should be abolished.
So we have come down through the ages until today. In those days the opposition was not to the killing as much as it was to the method of killing. But the world has changed, and today we are looking upon this more realistically, as an objection to killing in itself. I think that is the gravamen of this debate, the basis for it, arising out of the discussions which have been taking place during the past few weeks.
As has been suggested by the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), I suppose that technically this is a want of confidence motion; yet I am sure that if the government could see its way to accepting it, and I think they should, the matter could easily be resolved and there would be no question of confidence involved whatsoever. It does suggest something which I think the people of Canada want. They want an investigation into those matters which have been discussed during the past few weeks. They would like to see a committee of some kind established whereby a pattern would be laid down for this country to follow.
No country in the world has paid more lip service than Canada to the principles of the saving of life, the abolition of war and the United Nations. We have boasted of the fact that we were one of those responsible for the establishment of the United Nations; and I have heard it suggested that the distinguished gentleman, the Prime Minister, was father of the United Nations. We have heard praises heaped upon him throughout the years. The United Nations is supposed to be opposed to war and killing, and the charter of that organization says that all states shall settle disputes by peaceful means, and shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
Those are mighty principles, and I think they are principles which should be supported. If so, then why are we engaged in the sale of arms to countries which are not associated with us either through NATO or through the commonwealth? A little while ago the hon. member for Macleod said that this motion savored something of isolationism, but I can assure him that there is nothing isolationist in the motion. In so far


as Canada is concerned, and in so far as the commonwealth is concerned, we believe that there should be complete freedom to do as we see fit in order to maintain our independence and to give us protection.
But when it comes to the sale of arms indiscriminately throughout the world, that is a different story entirely. Canada has taken an active part in the United Nations, not only in its organization but in the disarmament conferences that have been held. We have been members of those, and we have always urged disarmament. We have passed resolutions in the United Nations urging the countries of the world to disarm. On reading the minutes yesterday I noticed that we were the ones who negotiated with Russia and got that country to accept at least the nominal principle of disarmament.
Yet we have just listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) tell us about the countries to which we have been shipping arms. It is true the quantities are not so great, but I suggest it is not the quantity that counts, it is not a question of whether it is $1 million or $10 million worth of arms, because a bullet may mean a life. That is the way it should be considered. When bullets are sold lives are threatened and lives may be extinguished.
I suggest in all seriousness that in the way in which this government has been carrying on the sale of arms, even though they be in limited quantities, they have violated the principles of the United Nations, and have not been carrying out that principle which we have been preaching so long and so forcibly. In fact one might borrow a word that has been bandied about in the press lately; one might almost say they are United Nations deviates in the way they have acted in this matter. It is time to take a serious look at this. That is why this resolution has been moved.
There is something incongruous in their protestations of virtue on the one side and their practice on the other. Not only is it incongruous; it is almost an affectation, if not something very near to hypocrisy. It is true that they say it balances out. We send anti-aircraft guns to one country and the aircraft to the other, so that they will have an equal chance. When the guns shoot down the aircraft, we can say we did it. When the aircraft shoots the gun crew, we can say we did it. So we are all right, whichever way it goes. That is not, I think, the way in which this matter should be handled.
We were told that the procedure was a very simple one. I looked up the act today, the Export and Import Permits Act. It is a statute that was passed some years ago and

which expires, according to the act, in 1957. Under this act we have delegated certain powers to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The governor in council can name products and countries. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce decides whether permits will be issued. That is what the act says. Under it all the power is delegated to the minister. Even the greatest critics of the minister-and I am sure he will admit that he has quite a few-will not deny the fact that he is a very busy man who is administering two departments, to say nothing of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, T.C.A. and many other things. It is not good enough that these powers should be delegated to that one man to exercise in this way.
It is true that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said that there is a code which is followed. He said it does not work out that way, and it is not left to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He said that if there are sensitive areas-whatever they may be, and there are 34 of them, some of them presumably more sensitive than others-then a conference is held among the Minister of National Defence, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
That is fine in theory, but does it work? As I have said, the Minister of Trade and Commerce is very busy. The Minister of National Defence is probably over in Paris attending a NATO conference; and the Secretary of State for External Affairs may be making a long-delayed trip to Israel. When we ought to have a conference, the Minister of Trade and Commerce usually has to go ahead. He usually issues a permit and then forgets about it. Undoubtedly that is what happened in these cases to which reference was made the other day.
I was reminded of the story about the big fellow and the little jaunty fellow with the bow tie who had been out hunting together for a long time and were used to each other. They finally came to the edge of a clearing. They looked across and saw a deer, as they thought. They both fired and hit it. The little fellow said, "We shot it." The big fellow said, "What do you mean, 'we'? I shot it." They walked across the clearing and found that, instead of a deer, it was a horse. The little fellow said, "Boy, we are in trouble." The big fellow said, "What do you mean, 'We're in trouble'? You are in trouble." That was the pattern that was established in this discussion of who issued what and where and how.
In any event, I suggest that that procedure is not as set forth by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It could not have been,
Shipment of Arms Abroad because never was a matter so clear cut; never was a matter so circumscribed by rules and regulations; never was such a clear directive given as to how it should operate; yet never did a matter cause so much delay, so much confusion in explanation, so much circumlocution and-I think I can say, too- never did an explanation prompt so many revisions. Certainly it could not be so clear and it could not operate in quite the way in which we were told it operated; otherwise we would have had a more clear cut explanation than we did receive.
Some may say, "We have not sold much." The Secretary of State for External Affairs says, "This is all right. If we were immoral, other people were more immoral. If we were wrong in doing this, then somebody else was more wrong." I do not think we should accept that principle of morality. I heard a lecturer on morality once give an illustration. He said that at election time an old man had been approached by a Conservative agent who offered him $3 for his vote. The Liberal agent then offered him $5 for his vote. He took both amounts. When asked for whom he voted, he said, "Of course I voted for the Conservatives, because they were less corrupt than the Liberals."
That is the same principle the Secretary of State for External Affairs was trying to elaborate the other night: "We are less corrupt than Britain or less corrupt than the United States, because we do not sell quite so many arms and do not get quite so much money for them." I do not think we can accept that principle. I suggest the time has come when we should accept a definite code of conduct in this matter, and we should have a clear cut investigation of it by the parliament of Canada as a whole. Then the people of Canada will feel much happier about it than they do now.
It is true that some will say the arms we sold were not very powerful, that they were only old material or they were tank tracks or rifles or ammunition of some kind that would not hurt very much. But a bullet will kill you as fast as an atomic weapon. Once you are dead it does not make much difference which way it comes. That argument is one that surely cannot appeal to our reason. It is true that in the old days those were the conventional weapons, but today the time is rapidly coming when somebody sitting in an easy chair can push a button and start a projectile hurtling through the air which in a matter of a few minutes or a few hours can bring death and devastation to tens of thousands of people. Those weapons can be exchanged back and forth, and we can blast this world out of existence.
896	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad
We know that great wars start from small ones. There is an old adage that great oaks from little acorns grow. We have been told by everyone that the deterrent effects of nuclear weapons are such that no one is going to start on his own initiative a nuclear war. Eut one may be started easily, possibly from the smaller conflagrations starting out with conventional weapons, and that is one of the things we should try to avoid.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre said this afternoon that wherever there has been shooting in the past five years in Central or South America, we were sending arms there. Why? So people could get lulled. They can be killed with our bullets. We are shipping arms to various sensitive centres, 34 sensitive centres in the world. I do not know how sensitive they are, but I presume that the more sensitive they are the less arms we ship and, therefore, the fewer people we kill. But is that the principle on which we want to operate? I do not think there is an hon. member in this house who wants to subscribe to that practice.
I do not want to engage in hyperbole or exaggeration at all; therefore I will not say that the people of Canada generally have been shocked. But I do say that they have been profoundly bothered by the disclosures and the debates of the past two weeks. I do not think our people want our government, directly or indirectly, to be mixed up in the sale of arms or permitting the sale of arms except to our own associates and allies where we know, as well as we can reasonably know anything, that they are going to be used for our own defence.
That is what we should aim at. No one knows how much has been sold. No one can tell. The dollar value means nothing. You sell something for a few cents on the dollar and you say that you have only sold a million dollars worth. Well, a million dollars worth of bullets will do quite a lot of damage. If that million dollars worth happened to be on the basis of 5 cents on the dollar you would be selling a lot more than a million dollars worth.
No one knows how much has been sold for scrap. I noticed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other day, in response to a question, said that he had gone back as far as January, 1952, and had found that wherever guns had been sold for scrap the barrels were defaced so they could not be used as weapons.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that if he had gone back one month beyond that, if he had gone back to December, 1951, he would have found a situation where the barrels were not defaced for scrap. There was an incident in


the city of Halifax at that time in connection with scrap. Men were engaged by War Assets in packing and crating scrap to be sold through a certain company which was exporting it out of the country. Many of the men working there were returned men from the second world war. They became somewhat incensed about this scrap which was being packed and the price they believed the government was getting for it, about 25 cents a pound.
Good machine guns were being included in that scrap. So these men, decent Canadians, said. "We will fix this." They took acetylene torches and burned the barrels of 71 of these guns, and defaced them so they were properly scrap. These were Browning machine guns. The man who was buying them came down and said, "I am not going to take these." They said, "You are buying scrap and at 25 cents a pound; you will take them." He said, "I will show you. The government will deal with you."
Inside of a week instructions came from the director of armament in Ottawa, Mr. Monroe, telling them in Halifax that these guns had not been sold for scrap purposes. I do not know what that word "purposes" means, Mr. Speaker. You either know whether you are selling scrap or you do not. But in this case these men were told that they had not been sold for scrap purposes and the men who had defaced them were ordered to replace the barrels, the 71 that had been burned. They were ordered to take 71 barrels off repairable or serviceable Browning machine guns.
There we have an incident where people were buying so-called scrap and paying scrap prices for it, and this happened only one month previous to the time covered by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his check. He said he went back to January, 1952. If he had gone back to December, 1951-perhaps that is why he did not go back-	,


Stanley Howard Knowles: He had better do it now.


George Clyde Nowlan: -he would have found this situation. He would have found that we replaced 71 barrels on those scrap guns with serviceable or repairable barrels. They were then exported to one of the countries about which we have been talking during the last few days. I have the bill of lading for the freight car. I have the number of the freight car.
It has been suggested that they were not sold for scrap purposes. I can tell you that the C.N.R. hauled the car out of the yard in Halifax as scrap. The bill of lading said "scrap" and the freight rate applicable to

scrap was paid. They were shipped to Montreal and from there overseas. One hundred and twenty-five guns were sold as scrap. Seventy-one of them only had been defaced and the 71 barrels had to be replaced. That is a situation which developed in this country. True, it was five years ago. True, it was in December, 1951.


An hon. Member:: Where were they going?


George Clyde Nowlan: They were shipped to Montreal and were exported from Montreal. That is what happened in that particular case. As I said, we do not know. We talk about dollars. What is the value of that in a situation such as this, when you are getting so many cents a pound? The men who were packing them believed, rightly or wrongly, that the people exporting them were getting $250 apiece for them. Whether they were or not I do not know, but that was the situation in that particular case. I believe the same thing has happened scores and scores of times all across this country. ;I believe there have been numerous instances in connection with the sale of such weapons.
It is time for an investigation. It is time something was done about it. I believe that is one example that will impress anybody with the necessity of having a committee to study these things; because when you get young Canadians, boys who served overseas who were working on this material, getting so indignant at what was going on that they did what they did and then were reprimanded for it and had to replace the barrels, you can see that this is not a matter to be dealt with jocularly. I think it is much more serious than that.
This afternoon we were told that the temporary embargo imposed a while ago had been lifted. There will be ample opportunity to debate that at some other time, but there again it shows the necessity for some investigation. Either the government was right in putting on an embargo or it was not, and if it was right it should not have taken it off. It certainly showed that it was very worried, very uncertain, very jittery about something when the embargo was first put on, and now we are told it has been taken off.
It may be that the government knows of certain factors which, of course, are not known, and properly so, to all members of the House of Commons. We cannot expect that, but I do suggest that the embargo could have been retained, we could have had a committee investigation, and we could have evolved a code of conduct which would have been more satisfactory than what is now in operation in this country, because the whole background of this discussion has shown uncertainty and indecision and I know has caused unrest.
Shipment of Arms Abroad.
What we are asking for is an investigation by a committee of this parliament, not a punitive one, not a witch hunt, nothing of that kind, but a committee which can discover the facts and establish a code of conduct, because I think that is necessary. Someone may say, "Well, what is the good of a code?" Somebody has to make a start. Disarmament, to which we have paid lip service for years, is not going to come overnight. If we wait for every country in the world to do it at the same time it is never going to come. There is jockeying back and forth between the great powers. Russia says, "Disarm nuclear weapons", and naturally the western powers say, "We cannot disarm nuclear weapons because then you are going to have a tremendous advantage in conventional weapons, so you reduce your conventional weapons and we will keep the nuclear weapons."
The see-saw argument has been going on now for three or four years. I know there are some hon. members opposite, as well as some on this side of the house, who have taken part in the United Nations. They have sat and watched the play acting going on with respect to this matter. They are simply mouthing words; that is all they are doing. If you read the report of the United Nations for the last four years dealing with disarmament, as I did yesterday, you will find that the whole debate turns on whether they will amend subsection A of paragraph B and so on. It almost sounds like one of those amendments of the Income Tax Act the Minister of Finance brings in every once in a while that no one can understand. They get bogged down and involved in these long, technical, boring amendments, and in the end they get nowhere. I say that a beginning has to be made some place.
As for the right hon. gentleman who was here this afternoon and whom we were all so happy to hear speak to us-and he is still in the city tonight-so far as my reading goes of anything he has said about foreign affairs he has expressed the view that you must start with small things; that you cannot expect to settle overnight all the problems of the world; that you get a little approach made here and a little advance made there, and then gradually you can attempt to arrive at a solution of these problems.
I have a suggestion to make. It is only a small thing, perhaps, but I suggest that Canada can set an example on this matter. I suggest that we can establish a code which we can agree to maintain strictly, and which will be about as close to getting disarmament as is reasonable or practically possible by a middle class power to establish in this troubled world today. If we can do that we will make one step-and it is a positive step
898	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad -along the road to total disarmament and to peace. That is what this world needs. I think that is what Sir Anthony Eden would advise.
Although some may say that this is only a minor matter, that this will not get as anywhere, I say this to the government: Why do you not try it? Why do we not set an example to the rest of the world in this matter? Perhaps we could send out a little beacon light across the troubled waters, which in the end will evolve into a great burning light which will lead the nations of the world to disarmament which seems so far away at the present time. That is why I urge the government to accept this proposal, in the belief that the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada will welcome it.
Some hors. Members:	Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready
for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated to rise in this debate at this time, but I feel that the matter under discussion is of great importance to the Canadian people. I am sorry that no speaker from any other party sees fit to take part in the debate at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Earl Rowe: He said "at this time". He is right.


John Angus MacLean: I mean at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Give us a chance.


John Angus MacLean: Until now no member of the government party has taken part in the debate.


Charles Edward Johnston: You should know. You never let us know this was coming down.


William Earl Rowe: We are not running the house yet.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, in the past number of years Canada has enjoyed an enviable position in the councils of the nations of the world. We have attained that position because we have been looked upon as a disinterested and fair nation, a nation of people who are basically peace-loving and, perhaps most of all, a nation which would be loath to improve its position, especially in a material sense, at the expense of any other nation, great or small. I say with regret that, owing to the things which have been taking place over the last few years and which are now gradually being revealed, I am afraid that Canada has gone at least some way toward
[Mr. Nowlan.l

losing that enviable position which she has held. I believe the situation can still be saved, but I think the Canadian people have real concern over the state of affairs which is now disclosed to them.
There are, of course, those who would say that it is in the revelation of the facts that the mischief lies and that the facts themselves, if perfectly concealed, may do little or no damage. The people who put forward that point of view, for reasons of their own, belong to the school who think that undetected crime is practically tantamount to virtue; and I think such a point of view is not worthy of any further consideration.
Owing to the importance of Canada's position in the world today an importance that will continue to grow as we grow as a nation,
I believe it becomes vitally important to the cause of peace and to the furtherance of our own interests that we should see that our position is preserved. A fair question to ask is this. What are we doing at the present time to preserve that position? I do not think that aggravating the situation in sensitive areas of the world by even token shipments of arms to any side in any dispute is furthering our interests. When we do that we betray the confidence which the peoples of the world have placed in us as a disinterested and fair nation. I believe the Canadian people feel that the government should be alert to the situation at all times and that under no circumstances should any action be taken that might upset the balance in any particular area or set a match to the powder kegs which exist in many places in the world today.
Some people may say that the exporters of those arms are to blame, and that if they were men of conscience they would not engage in such a business. It is my contention, Mr. Speaker, that they should not be called upon to judge whether or not it is wise or right to ship arms to a particular area. These exporters apply to the government, and rightly so, for permits to export arms or other materials to various areas. When they are given an export permit they naturally assume that the Canadian people, through their government, have put the stamp of approval on that transaction.
It is up to us to see that Canada does not engage in any traffic in arms which might threaten the peace of the world, and to see that none of its citizens do so. As the representatives of the Canadian people it behooves us to see that the wishes of the Canadian people are carried out. That is a heavy responsibility which is placed squarely on our shoulders, and we must face up to it. I believe the people of Canada wish that we

should not contribute to the suffering and misery of any people whose homes may be ravaged by war or insurrection of any kind, even if it is on a small scale. We should not provide the spark to set alight the powder keg of war in any area. We all know that in this shrinking world a small conflagration anywhere may rapidly spread into a raging prairie fire that would sweep across the world and engulf us all in a third world war. Such a war, if it ever comes, will be a catastrophe, because with the advent of modern atomic weapons the danger of our very civilization being wiped out is very great indeed.
I think it was Sir Winston Churchill, in referring to the first world war shortly after its close, who said that victory was bought at such a price as to make it almost indistinguishable from defeat. If a third world war should ever come there would be no victor.
I think it is a fair question to ask ourselves at the present time, Mr. Speaker, whether or not we think the wishes of the Canadian people are now being carried out. I would like to think they are, but I am forced reluctantly to doubt whether they are.
Earlier this session a question was asked of the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the export of certain aircraft. He rose in his place and said that he knew of no such export. Later information showed that aircraft were being exported at that particular time. The Secretary of State for External Affairs should have known whether or not aircraft were being exported. Furthermore, I would say that it should be impossible for munitions of war of any sort, especially aircraft, to be exported without the knowledge of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Later on a similar question was asked of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Camp-ney) regarding the export of certain war material, and he said he had no knowledge of it. That is a state of affairs that should not exist. It should not be possible for those things to go on without the knowledge of the responsible ministers.
Still later a question was put to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe), who is responsible for the act under which these exports are made, namely the Export and Import Permits Act. The question had to do with the export of certain aircraft. It seemed to be the attitude of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that since the aircraft were small and of a commercial type the question was irrelevant, or almost so, as far as the possibility of any danger being involved in the export of such aircraft. That is not a good explanation.
I point out that the list of materials which require export permits includes, of course,
67509-57i
Shipment of Arms Abroad and rightly so, civilian aircraft, equipment and parts thereof. The minister tried to belittle the incident by saying the aircraft in question was merely a Chipmunk, which is a light training aircraft to be used, he said, in patrolling certain oil lines. I would point out that aircraft of any kind may add to the potential of any nation to making war. The then minister of national defence recognized that very thing when he spoke in a debate in this house on April 15, 1953. In referring to Canada's definite offer he had this to say, as reported at page 3922 of Hansard:
We are producing the F-86E, the CF-100, the T-33 trainer, the latest Harvard type trainer, plus light transport aircraft-the Otter, the Beaver and the Chipmunk, leading aircraft of their type. As far as we know there is not anything to match them; and it is high time, I think, that the Canadian people began to recognize that their air force has become one of the leading air forces in effective fighting power on our side today.
The then minister of national defence recognized in that statement that aircraft, even light aircraft, adds to one's potential; and the importance of aircraft varies a great deal, of course, with the situation. Of course, a Chipmunk or a Beaver aircraft, or aircraft of similar types, would be sitting ducks if they were to operate against perhaps Sabres or some other type of modern jet-propelled aircraft, but they are very formidable weapons if they are operating against stray patrols on a desert who have no adequate means of protecting themselves against aircraft. As a matter of fact some of these similar types are ideal for that sort of thing.
Then aircraft can take on special importance, even obsolescent types of aircraft, or small transport aircraft, under certain conditions. During the last war the R.A.F. found it necessary, when the threat of invasion was very great and the means of defence very small, to prepare to use Tiger Moths and other very light training aircraft for offensive purposes against ground troops if an invasion came.
I seek clarification of the statement of the minister regarding this particular aircraft. The minister said the aircraft in question was a Chipmunk. I seek this information by the way. Since the minister himself is not in his seat, perhaps he might have notice given of it so that an answer can be forthcoming. I note that the item regarding that aircraft is listed as being in one case about $44,000, and in the other, about $41,000. That is approximately the price of a Beaver aircraft. I think a Beaver aircraft sells for $35,000 plus in this country depending on what equipment is on it; and a Chipmunk, which is the other aircraft, costs about $25,000 in this country. I should like to have an explanation of the great difference in price.
gOO	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad
In the course of the questions and answers on the orders of the day over the last two days, it would appear there has been an attempt on the part of the government to belittle our exports of arms and other warlike material in certain cases because they are obsolete, or the items themselves are small, or the quantity is not great. This makes little sense to me. What the government is saying in effect when such exports go to sensitive areas is that we are only tossing small sparks into the powder keg. I would like to point out that under certain circumstances even small contributions of lethal weapons can be very aggravating to the persons on whom they are used.
I am speaking only from memory in this case but I believe it was the Prime Minister who recently said that when export permits were asked for, great consideration was given to the situation and an endeavour was made to ensure that the export would not upset the balance of power between two of these minor countries, and therefore there would be no danger of their engaging in an arms race. It would seem to me there might be occasions when we might believe the power as between two nations was in balance, but I think it would be an extremely difficult task to convince them, if they were in balance, to stay that way. I am sure if a small nation with aggressive or belligerent tendencies were do learn that its power was in balance with its would-be victim, it would not be satisfied *with that situation and would make every effort to get the balance upset in its own favour as quickly as possible.
Even if it were possible to maintain perfect balance as between two small countries, what is the objective? Is it to keep them in a state of tension, sniping at each other indefinitely in an indecisive way until they eventually attain the condition of the Kilkenny cats? What is the motive? There is great danger that a small war may spread and involve the whole civilized world. In this day of the atom bomb such an event would be absolutely fatal to our civilization, in all probability, if a full scale war were waged.
I therefore think this theory is completely <unsound; it is much akin to using the argument that if you see two small boys fighting in the street and the little fellow is getting the worst of the deal, you should furnish him -with a brick in order that he might try to knock out the bigger fellow's brains. That does not make sense to me. I think what is required is a firm, honest approach to the situation. The boys should be chastised and if necessary the police should be called.
That, I think, is the situation today as far as small belligerent nations are concerned.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, this whole question of the sale of arms, munitions and equipment of war is of course closely tied up with the whole matter of disarmament. Last fall I had the pleasure of being a parliamentary observer at the tenth general assembly of the United Nations and sitting in at all the meetings of the disarmament conference. Anyone who has had that opportunity I think will realize fully the difficulties of the problem of disarmament. World disarmament cannot be achieved very easily, but I think the general observation can be made that the indiscriminate sale of arms, particularly to trigger-happy tribesmen and others, will do nothing to further improve world peace. I certainly think that Canada,
Shipment of Arms Abroad which is so highly respected among other countries, should set an example in this regard.
This afternoon the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre moved the following amendment:
That, in the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment. should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
That amendment naturally brings two questions to mind. First, assuming that a code of procedure is needed, why have the proposed committee recommended such a code of procedure? Second, why is a code of procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, munitions and military equipment needed at all?
With respect to the first question, apparently there is no procedure at the present time with regard to the issuing of export permits for arms and other military equipment. This has become quite obvious since the opening of this session from the answers that have been received to questions asked. Apparently we can expect that sometimes the government makes these decisions, while on other occasions, as the Prime Minister indicated this afternoon, the decisions are purely ministerial and nothing else.
This proposed committee, which I hope will be set up, should certainly formulate a code of procedure so that hon. members can find out, in camera if necessary, the quantities shipped, their destinations, the controls over the shipment of arms and the reasons for the shipments. I am sure that Canadians generally do not wish this country to be regarded by other countries as a merchant of death. If we are going to sell arms I think the reasons for selling them should be carefully considered.
This code of procedure should set out controls over the ultimate destination of arms. Arms may apparently be going to country A but it may be quite possible that they will end up in country B. Third, and most important of all, this procedure should be such as to assure that all ministers of the crown are informed of what arms sales are being approved.
My second question is, why should there be a special procedure necessary for the sale of arms? Arms are a very special commodity; they are not like apples, potatoes, wheat, fish or anything like that. The sale of arms to other countries could very well alter longterm government policy or even short-term government policy toward such countries or toward related countries. There can be
902	HOUSE OF
Shipment of Arms Abroad nothing but confusion if one minister permits the sale of arms without the other ministers knowing about it, particularly if the policy toward the government that may be affected by the sale is the responsibility of ministers who are not informed about the sale.
Since I have come to this house I have heard the government referred to as acting in such a way that the one hand does not know what the other hand is doing. I do not know that that is a suitable metaphor and I think we should go back to ancient times, to Greek mythology, to find a more suitable comparison. One of the labours of Hercules was to slay a creature called the Hydra or better known as the seven-headed serpent. This was a creature with one body and seven heads all going in different directions, and one not knowing what the other ones were doing.


An hon. Member:: That is the government.


An hon. Member:: They have seven bodies and one head.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: It might be better, in view of the remarks of my hon. friend, to have seven bodies and one head rather than one body and seven heads going in different directions. I should like to give a few illustrations of the point I have just made. First of all, the sale of arms can affect the long-range policies of the government. I think there is very little question about the fact that the general long-range policy of this government is to maintain world peace. That is what we have been told in this house and outside it. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the London Free Press, week end magazine edition, for January 28, 1956. This is an article entitled "This is our Foreign Policy" by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. On page 2 of this edition the article states, referring to Canada:
We are respected because we try to play a constructive and conciliatory role in international affairs.
Continuing a little further, it states on page 3:
We are respected also because we have not hesitated to accept our share of the burden of maintaining peace and promoting friendship between peoples; in the United Nations, in NATO, and elsewhere.
A little further on it states:
That, in fact, is the aim of our foreign policy: to play our full part in collective action for peace and in the search for solutions to the problems that now so dangerously divide the world.
It would seem to me that the sale of arms to the countries in the Caribbean, as referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, and elsewhere, can hardly bring about such conciliation and conciliatory measures.


More important, these approvals of the sale of arms by one minister of the crown when the others are apparently unaware of it, in effect are short-term policies toward various countries.
The same article to which I have already referred in a box on page 4, stated the policy of this government toward Israel and the Arab countries, as follows:
We have had requests in the past-in the last few years-from both Israel and Egypt and other Arab states. Our attitude is to do nothing that would disturb the military balance-
Here is what might be called the punch line:
-or add to their offensive strength.
This is an article written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs laying down government policy with respect to Israel and the Arab States. It says that the policy is to add nothing to their offensive strength; yet we have had admissions this year of the approval of sales of arms to those countries. There is hardly any consistency in that.
For these reasons we must have a code of procedure with respect to the sale of arms, even if it does nothing more than inform all ministers of the crown as to what arms are being shipped to other countries. The present slipshod, slap-happy method of doing things can only lead, as it has already, to disintegration of government policy. You might say that the present policy is simply an illustration of "I don't know where I'm going but I'm on my way."


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Speaker, I intend my remarks to be very brief, but they will not be as brief as three minutes. I do not know whether to call it ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Apparently there is not consent. I have been interested in this debate and have been asking myself, if the government is not prepared to agree to this, why that can be so. I would like to read the resolution to remind the house what is in it, how simple it is and how obvious is its good sense. The amendment is:
That, In the opinion of this house, the procedure with respect to the issuing of permits for the export of arms, ammunition, and military equipment, should be referred to the standing committee on external affairs with instructions to consider and to recommend to this house a definite code of procedure with respect thereto.
The first question that arises is as to whether there is now a definite code of procedure. I would think any member in this house and, most of all, any member of the government

would be quick to agree that there is no definite code of procedure. I was going to say that at best there was a hodgepodge of understandings among ministers, but I think that would be a great exaggeration. I think I should say "a hodgepodge of misunderstandings", because we never seemed to get to the point where there was an understanding among the ministers. We had an interesting galaxy of ministers parading before us- the minister of external affairs, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, the Minister of National Defence-and we got an interesting glimpse of the way they communicate with each other. I am reminded of the Prime Minister, but I omitted the Prime Minister because I think he was as innocent of the whole matter as a new born babe.


George Harris Hees: They do not tell him what is going on.
Shipment of Arms Abroad


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I doubt if he even heard any of the echoes that reverberated from department to department.


George Harris Hees: They never tell the boss.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That being so I come back to my first suggestion, that the government should be very glad indeed to have a definite code of procedure, and that a very sensible way of getting it would be the method suggested in this resolution.
Mr. Speaker, if my eyes tell me rightly it is ten o'clock. As the rest of my speech contains a few suggestions as to the only possible reasons the government could have for not agreeing to this, perhaps the government would be more interested in hearing them tomorrow.
On motion of Mr. Macdonnell the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Questions

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Argue: 1.	Can the Department of National Revenue register a judgment or otherwise force payments of tax arrears without a court order?
2.	If so, under what authority?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1. An amount payable under the Income Tax Act may be certified by the Minister of National Revenue after 30 days default in payment or forthwith if, in the opinion of the minister, there has been an attempt to avoid payment. Such certificate may be registered in the Exchequer Court of Canada. When so registered, the certificate has the same force and effect and all proceedings may be taken thereon as if such certificate were a judgment of that court.
2. The Income Tax Act, R.S.C. chapter 148, section 119 and section 51(2).
Customs and Excise Division-
1. A certificate of default with respect to sales and excise taxes may be registered similarly in the Exchequer Court of Canada.
Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. chapter 100, section 50 (4).


EGRET FEATHERS
Mr. Regier: 1.	Is the importation of the feathers of the egret bird permitted?
2.	If so, what is the estimate of the number of birds that had to be killed to supply Canada with aigrette in 1955?
3.	Have any representations been made to the government asking for a ban on such imports, and what has been the nature of the reply?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1. Aigrettes and egret plumes have been prohibited importation into Canada for many years (item 1212 of schedule C to the Customs Tariff).
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
of
RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR ANTHONY EDEN Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
to

[Stage Direction]
in the

[Stage Direction]
Monday, February 6, 1956, at 2.30 p.m.
Sir Anthony Eden was introduced by Mr. St. Laurent.
Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin, Speaker of the House of Commons, presided.
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, fellow members of parliament, it is my agreeable duty and privilege to welcome to the Canadian parliament the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. This I do with warm personal pleasure, and I know that all members share that pleasure and wish me to express on their behalf, as well as my own, our most cordial greetings to our distinguished guest.
We were all delighted, sir, when we learned that it would be possible for you to spend a few days in our capital following your important discussions in Washington, and that you had graciously accepted to speak to us here this afternoon.
I should like also to say how happy we are that the foreign secretary, Right Hon. Selwyn Lloyd, was able to accompany you on this visit. To him as well we extend a sincere and hearty welcome.
We recall, Mr. Prime Minister, that you previously addressed this parliament some 13 years ago when we were emerging from the darkest and most dangerous days of the war. The might of the enemy forces was still great, but the dawn of ultimate victory was beginning to appear.
Those of us who were here have vivid recollections of the inspiring message of courage and confidence you brought us from the battle-scarred but indomitable British nation.
You were then the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in a wartime government headed by one of the great Englishmen of historical fame, that towering figure, Sir Winston Churchill, to whom the whole free world will remain forever indebted.
Today we welcome you as the worthy successor in office of that great man, and we do 67509-58
so on the morrow of your visit to Washington where you have been strengthening Anglo-American co-operation and friendship, the essential foundation for the structure of peace which we are all striving to build.
May we be permitted to congratulate you on the success of that mission? Of course, I do not need to tell you that whenever London and Washington and Paris seek to deepen their friendly understanding, there is a feeling of very special satisfaction in Ottawa.
That visit to Washington was only another instance of the energetic, skilful and constructive part which you have played in international affairs during these troubled and trying years.
Your visit to us emphasizes the close association we enjoy with the United Kingdom and the other members of our commonwealth of nations. That association, based on the freedom of its members, spans the oceans and the continents; it is playing a worthy part in the search for peace, security and constructive progress.
We are also proud of our association with the United Kingdom as allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and as fellow members of the United Nations. In these organizations, too, we appreciate the opportunities of working with you for the strengthening of the free world and the maintenance of peace.
(Translation):
Mr. Prime Minister, you know that there are in Canada, and in this parliament, two official languages. And so I wish to tell you, on behalf of Canadians of French descent like myself, how happy they are also to greet you here and to extend to you a most hearty welcome.
I am conscious of accurately expressing the feelings of my fellow Canadians from the Atlantic to the Pacific when I say that they have the very highest regard for you.

Address by Sir Anthony Eden
(.Text):
I now invite Right Hon. Sir Anthony Eden, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, to address us.
Righl Hon. Sir Anthony Eden (Prime Minister of the United Kingdom): Mr. Speaker of the Senate, Mr. Speaker of the House of Commons, members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, Mr. Prime Minister, I am indeed grateful to you, sir, for your generous words, and to the Canadian parliament for this invitation. I am deeply moved by the compliment which you have paid to me for the second time in my life. That must be a rare event. I believe that it is in fact unique in history. On neither occasion, Mr. Speaker, have I been able to catch your eye. I do trust the backbench members will not in consequence be so much aggrieved that they will move the closure on me. I was a little reassured to learn, sir, that this is an unusual custom for your parliament.
You know that I speak sincerely when I say I am happy to be amongst you again. It is now 30 years since I first came to Canada and travelled across your country. On many occasions since then I have had opportunities to visit your vast and hospitable land. I am proud to think that I have more friends here than in any country outside my own.
(Translation):
French-speaking Canadians, I thank you cordially for your welcome. I do wish to say how much I admire and respect that culture and those traditions you so proudly preserve. You know that I am genuinely glad to be amongst you again. Thirty years have elapsed since my first visit to Canada. I have returned several times to your vast and hospitable land and, on each occasion, I have found many old friends and have made new ones.
I am deeply grateful for the high honour you have paid me in inviting me, for the second time in my life, to address the Canadian parliament.
(Text) :
Inevitably, my mind goes back this afternoon to that earlier occasion, to which you, Mr. Prime Minister, have referred, when I spoke to you during the war. Then, though the tide had turned, victory had yet to be won and the future beyond it lay all uncertain. He would be a rash man or an ill-informed man who would attempt a confident prophecy for mankind today.
Yet there is a certain balance sheet of good and evil which we can draw up, and I propose to do so, and to begin with the good, because it is more comforting that way. There is next the unshakable strength of

the Anglo-American alliance in which we all join. Third, the growing unity of western Europe within the framework of NATO. Fourth, and grimmer but still real, the deterrent power of the new weapons, including the hydrogen bomb, which restrain where they cannot reform. Fifth, the growing understanding by the west of the threat of communist penetration which it has to meet and of the new methods which we will have to employ.
And now on the debit side I would cite, first, the increasing hazards which some are prepared to take; second, the dangers of aggression by countries which believe they can ignore the deterrent; third, the continued existence of local disputes, whose consequences could engulf the world; fourth, the daily communist call to abhor the west sounds sharply. In contrast, the steady effort of the west to raise the standard of life for all free people must take time. It is easier to spread hatred than to make two blades of grass grow where one grew before.
Mr. Speakers, it is with this balance of good and evil in mind that we have to prepare ourselves. Economic weapons may take the place of military ones. But always our purpose must be the same; to maintain the right that men's minds may be free and the care that their bellies be filled. Well now, to achieve this, free nations like ourselves, like free men, must draw and hold together and it is in the spirit of those reflections that I would like to make some comments on the recent conversations which I have held in Washington with President Eisenhower.
I can best sum up my impressions of those talks by saying that there has never been so full a measure of agreement between our governments. In the whole field of European diplomacy, which a year or two back was troublesome enough, there was no difference between us. You may have noticed the attempts of the Kremlin to obscure the issues and confuse our councils. In fact they only provided most obligingly an opportunity to underline the unity between the United States and ourselves.
Now, Mr. Speaker, much of our meeting was devoted to the difficult and critical problems of the Middle East. Here too we were in agreement that the first danger was the continuing Arab-Israel dispute. We were also in agreement as to what we should do to try to resolve it. We decided that the necessary treatment should be of three kinds. We should continue to work without publicity-I really think diplomacy is more effective without publicity-and by every means to bring about a settlement in that area. This can only be realized if both sides are prepared to reconcile the positions they have taken up to now.

That means a compromise. Some people tell me compromise is a horrible English habit; however, some might learn from it to their own advantage in the world. But we can both help, and are ready to do so, for example by financial aid to help settle the tragic refugee problem and by a guarantee of the frontiers once agreed.
Meanwhile, as you know, Mr. Speaker, we, the United States and France have our responsibilities under the tripartite declaration of 1950. We arranged for discussions on the action to be taken to meet an emergency should it arise. The French government has agreed to join us in this. Personally I am convinced that to make ready in this way is to reduce the risk of conflict. It may also be, Mr. Speaker, that a strengthening of the United Nations truce supervisory organization would assist to prevent incidents. Both the United Kingdom and the United States governments are very ready to agree to this. But of course we should wish to be guided by General Burns, a brave Canadian soldier who is resolutely carrying out this thankless task.
As regards the dispute which we have with Saudi Arabia, our position is this. We are not prepared to return to arbitration. There can be no question of that in view of our recent experiences with their bribery and corruption. On the other hand, as we made clear in Washington, we are ready to enter into direct discussions.
The United States government has declared its solid support for the Baghdad pact, to which we belong. This again we welcome and here again our views are alike. The pact has economic purposes and aims which fully match its military provisions and importance. We have considered the kind of help which each member country needs and we are determined to make a success of the pact.
All this does not exclude some help to other countries in the area. An example is Jordan, to whom we shall continue to make substantial payments under our treaty.
So much then for what is perhaps the most critical region at the present time. Of course, we talked of many other problems, in many parts of the world, just as I had the privilege to do with the Prime Minister and your cabinet this morning. We discussed the declaration of Washington which the President and I issued together. In this we set forth the true principles which guide the free world. Some say that these have been stated before. Maybe, but it does no harm to state them again in a manner which makes it clear that we are aware of the modern communist challenge. The declaration of Washington is, in fact, a charter to which the whole of the free world can subscribe. I am sure that here in 67509-58J
Address by Sir Anthony Eden Canada you will agree with its purpose. It is in the tradition of the work you have done so well to unite the countries on either side of the Atlantic in defence of the free world.
Mr. Speakers, I now come back to our own friendship and the work of our two peoples together. Many speakers and writers have tried to define the commonwealth. None has really succeeded, for the reason no doubt that the spirit which gives it life is indefinable.
In a few months' time I look forward to welcoming the prime ministers of the commonwealth to our London meeting. Foremost amongst them is your own Prime Minister, wisest of counsellors and most loyal of friends. May I here suggest that though we enjoy being the hosts to all these meetings of prime ministers, it would be good if from time to time the meeting place were to revolve.
Mr. Speakers, I am here this afternoon surrounded by the familiar setting of our own House of Commons. This morning, Mr. Prime Minister, you were good enough to invite me and my colleague the foreign secretary to attend the Canadian cabinet. Our systems, our modes of thought, our traditions and our ways of life are all so much alike that perhaps we ought not to take too much credit to ourselves, but Anglo-Canadian relations are a model to the world.
But there is more to it than all this. The pervading influence which the commonwealth carries into the four corners of the earth is one of understanding among friends, of tolerance and of peace.
In all this work Canada now plays a leading part. It is impossible to travel, as I had to do as foreign secretary until a year ago, into so many lands without constantly hearing warm praise of the judgment and kindly help you have so often extended to "less happier lands". The service that you are rendering in Indo-China is but one example of the world's debt to you. By this action alone you made possible an armistice which may yet become a peace.
Mr. Speakers, if I may conclude on a slightly more familiar note, I have from my childhood, like many of you, seen this great nation grow up into a position where its authority is among the foremost in the world. I have no doubt of what the future holds. You will be called upon to carry ever more burdensome responsibilities, but they go with authority. That is inescapable. Yet ever so at home and over the world at large there is great comfort in that thought, for I have no doubt that the guidance and wisdom of Canada will always be thrown in the scales on the side of toleration and peace.
908	HOUSE OF
Visit of Sir Anthony Eden
It is not given to many of us to look far into the future, but of this no one who observes your country from outside can doubt a future, an almost unimaginably great future, is in your hands. I have no doubt that you will fashion it in a manner worthy of a great people.
And so, Mr. Speakers, I salute this Canada which commands the future as probably no other land in the world today. I salute you also as the standard bearer of loyalty and a herald of good will. And I wish you well.


Hon. Wishart  McL. Robertson@Speaker of the Senate: On behalf of the Senate of Canada may I say to you, Mr. Prime Minister, how greatly we appreciate your visit to Canada, your courtesy in meeting with us and, on their behalf, may I thank you for the address you have just delivered.
We will never forget the gigantic effort and sacrifice that the people of the United Kingdom made in the cause of freedom; their contribution in the rebuilding of a war-torn world and their efforts in building a better future.
The attendant circumstances of your visit, Mr. Prime Minister, are evidence of the leadership you are continuing to show in this respect. I need hardly say that in the peculiar position Canada occupies in relation in particular to the United Kingdom and the United States and, in general, to the other countries that are signatories to the North Atlantic treaty, we welcome every effort that is made towards greater understanding and in the achieving of a common viewpoint. Your very presence here and in Washington is evidence that you are keenly alive to the inestimable value of personal contacts in helping to attain these ends.
We would particularly ask you, Mr. Prime Minister, to convey our greetings to the members of the United Kingdom parliament. We hold them in the greatest respect, but we see far too little of each other. If it were possible to develop something more of the personal relationship and understanding between the members of our respective legislatures that already exist and are being constantly developed between the executive and administrative branches of government, not only would the attendant benefit be inestimable but it is quite possible that the difficulties of those whose responsibility it is to initiate policies might be lessened accordingly.
We wish you well in your undertakings. May divine Providence bless your endeavours.


Hon. L. Rene Beaudoin (Speaker of the House of Commons):: Honoured guests, Mr. Prime Minister, hon. members of the Senate,

hon. members of the House of Commons, ladies and gentlemen:
(Translation) :
Once a well-known American writer, Nicholas Murray Butler, pointing out the multitudinous problems peculiar to the twentieth century, stressed the high ability required of the men called upon to solve those problems. Then again, another distinguished American author, Whittier, said: "Each crisis brings its words and deeds".
These words naturally come to mind at this time when it is my very great privilege to thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, for your interesting speech and your kindly presence among us. May I be allowed to add that the success of your career arouses in us the deepest admiration.
I should fear to lapse into the commonplace in repeating that Sir Anthony Eden, "the specialist in foreign affairs, the virtuoso of diplomacy", to use the words of his biographer, Campbell-Johnson, is a statesman of the highest intellectual standing who has always shown supreme ability and understanding in tackling the most difficult international problems.
At the general elections, in 1950, he summed up his political creed by referring to the theory of the three unities; first, the unity that should exist within the commonwealth; second, the unity of western Europe; and third, the unity which, across the Atlantic, binds England to the United States. Today he has restated his political faith in those three unities and has added two others which are most important and inseparable from the first three.
We believe, as he does, in maintaining a friendly solidarity between the countries which make up the commonwealth.
For us, who are French-speaking and whose mother country was France, we cannot forget, sir, that you have always been a friend of that great nation, that you have, on many occasions, revived the principles that made a success of the Entente Cordiale. You have always believed that the solidarity of Anglo-French relations, nay of western European relations, was the very basis of relations between all western European countries, not only for the present but also for the future.
There are, of course, "other places under the sun" and, as a North American people, we rejoice at your relations with the United States. On the occasion of your visit to America in 1943, President Roosevelt was able to say that you both seemed to agree on approximately ninety-five per cent of the

problems, which is a remarkable proportion. And in the last few days, you and the present President of the United States have just agreed one hundred per cent on the definition of the philosophy behind our way of life, as you personally chose to call it, a definition which was incorporated in this henceforth memorable document, the declaration of Washington.
This is consistent with the objective which is yours today and which you set yourself a long time ago when you said in the House of Commons:
I am convinced that a closer understanding between our nation and the United States constitutes the most important objective that the government of that country could propose to us.
Visit of Sir Anthony Eden
In addition you have accomplished a tour de force, as it were, in bringing about an effective rapprochement with new Germany.
As I said just now, each crisis brings its words and deeds, and brings forth the indispensable men whose courage and logic carry ideals into the realm of reality.
(Text) :
Each crisis brings its words and deeds; it' brings also to the fore the men to utter those words and to do those deeds, and men with sufficient courage and consistency to translate their ideals into realities. Of such a breed is our honoured guest today.
So, in the name of the House of Commons and of the Canadian people, may I say to you, sir: Thank you and good luck!

Tuesday, February 7, 1956