1956-02-01

Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that all hon. members will wish me to address our best wishes to the Prime Minister on his birthday anniversary.
(.Translation):
We wish you a happy birthday, Mr. Prime Minister. All your colleagues, I am sure, are asking Providence to grant your fondest wishes.
(Text):
In our wishes we of course include the Prime Minister's distinguished wife, Madame St. Laurent, who joins us today in the celebration of this happy event. We do wish you, sir, many happy returns of the day.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, while possibly no words are needed in addition to what you have already said, perhaps on one of those happy occasions when we can all speak with complete unanimity it might be appropriate that as Leader of the Opposition I express with certainty the thoughts of all members when I say we wish the Prime Minister many happy returns of the day and joy and happiness with his family on these occasions.


Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, since you have expressed these wishes on behalf of the house, and the Leader of the Opposition has risen to join with you, may I say that, as I did on my own behalf this morning, I now do on behalf of my colleagues and I know all members of the house. We join in wishing the Prime Minister many happy returns, long life and good health.


Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, for us to remain silent in this corner of the house might be interpreted entirely adversely. Since you have extended the wishes of the house, Mr. Speaker, may I say that we concur in those best wishes. Not only do we wish the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) many happy returns of the day but we wish him long life, good health and happiness. I do not know whether some of us wish that he remain in his present office. We should like to see him take it easy for a while and enjoy life. But so long as he is here, or wherever
he may be, we wish him the very best for his future days.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you as Speaker of the house and, through you, to thank all hon. members for the kind good wishes they have expressed to me on this occasion. I rejoice in the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) and the leaders of the other groups join in saying that there are happy occasions when we can be unanimous. It is a great gratification to receive these good wishes from all my colleagues in this house. I thank them for associating with me in their good wishes the members of my family, because that is something which each one of us appreciates deeply. I can assure you that I am conscious of the honour and tribute that I am receiving from all my colleagues on this occasion.



STARRED QUESTIONS


Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many persons have lost their lives in Canada during the past year in fires in dwellings?
2.	How many of these were children?


Mr. Dickey:: Mr. Speaker, this question requests information with regard to the number of persons who have lost their lives by fires in dwellings in Canada in the past year and, as a second question, the number of such persons who were children.
The past year is 1955 and statistics for 1955 will not be available until June of this year. However, in answer to the question, I may give the house the following information for the calendar year 1954:
1 and 2.
Number of deaths from accidents caused
by fire and explosion of combustible
material,	Canada,	1954* Place of Accident	Total	Home	OtherAll ages 	513	442	71Under 1 year ....	25	25	-1 	38	37	12 years....	33	32	13 	26	26	-4	32	32	-5-9	51	48	310-14 	19	18	115-19	14	11	320 and over	275	213	62*Latest available.	Statistics for	1955 willnot be available until June 1956.	
Questions
DEER LODGE HOSPITAL AND VETERANS* HOME


LAY-OFFS
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many employees at Deer Lodge hospital and at the veterans' home on Academy road, Winnipeg, have been laid off or given lay-off notices since October 1, 1955?
2.	What is the reason for such lay-offs?
3.	In view of the years of service of such employees, and in view of the needs of these institutions, is consideration being given to cancelling such lay-offs and retaining these employees on the staffs of these institutions?
1, 2 and 3.


Mr. Lapointe:: This question, Mr. Speaker, refers to the number of employees at Deer Lodge hospital and at the veterans' home on Academy road, Winnipeg, who may have been laid off since October 1, 1955, the reasons for these lay-offs and whether consideration has been given to cancelling such lay-offs.
The answer is that no employee has been laid off. Nineteen classified employees have received notice and three more will receive notice which will be effective March 31, 1956. In addition, three prevailing rate employees will be given notice unless normal staff turnover between now and March 31, 1956, permits their retention. The reason for these notices is that as a result of demolition of the old portion of the hospital there will be a reduction of 226 beds in the operating capacity for a period of some two years, and a corresponding decrease in the personnel required.
The department's establishment for 1956-57 for this institution has been adjusted accordingly and provision for salaries in the department's 1956-57 estimates has been made on the adjusted basis. The department, in cooperation with the civil service commission, is endeavouring to find alternative employment for all employees affected and has been successful so far in arranging for the placement of 12 people. Every endeavour will be made to secure employment for the other employees who will be laid off before March 31.


OLD AGE SECURITY ACT-CONTINUANCE OF PENSION
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Is consideration being given by the government to amend the Old Age Security Act to permit persons who have qualified for the pension paid thereunder to continue to receive the said pension even if they subsequently move to another country?
2.	If the answer to question (1) is not yet in the affirmative, is consideration being given to amending the said act to provide for continued receipt of the old age security pension by persons who are required to move to another country for health or other specified reasons?
3.	If the answers to both question (1) and question (2) are not yet in the affirmative, will this whole matter now be studied by the government?

1, 2 and 3.


Mr. Marlin:: The government is constantly giving consideration to any amendments to the Old Age Security Act which seem, in the light of experience, advisable.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Murphy (Lamblon West): 1.	What was the amount spent for advertising by each department of government during the calendar year 1955?
2.	What firms were employed?
3.	What amount was paid each advertising firm?


DEPUTY MINISTERS
Mr. Gagnon: On January 1, 1956, (a) who were the deputy ministers and other persons having the rank of deputy minister, and with what departments were they respectively connected; (b) what remuneration is paid to each one?


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Bryson: 1.	How many national parks are there in Canada?
2.	What is the name and location of each?
3.	On what date was each of these parks established or opened?
4.	What amount has been spent in each park to date on (a) capital construction; (b) maintenance and repairs?
5.	How many miles of passable roads in each,
(a)	hard surface; (b) gravel; (c) earth surface?
6.	What are the names and locations of national parks through which trans-Canada highway passes, and the number of miles of this highway in each park?
7.	What annual revenue has been received from each park during the past five fiscal years?


NATIONAL DEFENCE-FIRES
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): 1.	Did the Department of National Defence have any fires during the year 1955?
2.	If so, what was the total (a) number of fires;
(b)	fire loss?
3.	In all cases where the loss exceeded $5,000, what was (a) the location; (b) the service; (c) the cause; (d) the extent of fire loss?
4.	Was an official inquiry held in each case?
5.	If so, what were the findings?


CROWN COMPANIES
Mr. Fraser (Peterborough): 1.	What crown companies, corporations or subsidiary companies are owned by the dominion government?
2.	What are the names of the directors in each case?


SALE OF OIL RIGHTS
Mr. McCullough (Moose Mountain): 1.	What was the number of land sales of oil rights during 1954 and 1955, (a) by the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources; (b) by the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
2.	What constituted the basic terms of the agreement in each case?


POST OFFICE THEFTS
Mr. Hamillon (Noire Dame de Grace): 1.	Have any thefts of money, postage stamps or anything of value occurred in Canadian post offices, since April 1, 1955?
2.	If so, for each such theft, (a) where did it take place; (b) what was the amount involved;
(c)	what was the date of the theft; (d) has court action been instituted against specific individuals; (e) what was the result of such action, if any?


AUTOMATION
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Are any departments of the federal government making studies of automation, so that plans might be formulated (a) to cope with the various problems created thereby; (b) to make sure that its advantages will be shared by all the people of Canada?
2.	If so, what departments are making such studies, and what aspects of automation and its consequences is each such department studying? Are the results, to date, of such studies available?
3.	If such studies are not already being made, will immediate consideration be given thereto?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mr. Coldwell:
For a copy of all memoranda, correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the government of Canada and the governments of any of the provinces, since January 1, 1954, regarding proposals for the building of a trans-Canada pipe line.

[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.
Mr. Howe (Port Arthur):: I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, I must declare that it is not in the public interest to bring down the correspondence referred to. I believe hon. members will agree that if there cannot be private correspondence between the government of the United States and the government of Canada on matters affecting wheat, the disposal program of both countries will be prejudiced.
I think that is self-evident.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the minister to point out that since the member who is the mover of this motion is not in the house at the moment it is customary to allow the motion to stand. I suggest the minister might conclude his statement now and the hon. member may govern himself accordingly whenever he is back in the house.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Perhaps my reply could stand as well.



EXPROPRIATION OF VETERANS' PROPERTY, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Goode:
Motions for Papers
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the officials of the Veterans Land Act administration, Vancouver, and the province of British Columbia, from January 1, 1955 to date, regarding expropriation of property held by the veterans under the Veterans Land Act, on Patterson road, Richmond, British Columbia, said expropriation for approaches to the Oak street bridge.
Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the motion being passed with the usual reservation that the government of British Columbia be advised.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried, subject to the reservation made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs.



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.
John Horace Dickey: I understood from the hon. member that this was to stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: May I request that whenever it is understood a motion is to be allowed to stand, hon. members should not let me put it, but to say so the minute I call it. If hon. members would co-operate in that sense I would appreciate it.
Motion stands.



POWER-FRASER AND COLUMBIA POTENTIALS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Fulton:
For a copy of all letters, memoranda, contracts, communications or instructions exchanged between the dominion government or any department or agency thereof and any other person or body, since the 1st January, 1955, concerning an investigation of the power potential of the Fraser river and/or the Columbia river and/or the feasibility and effects of the Columbia river diversion.
Mr. Lesage:: Mr. Speaker, the motion
requests the production of a great number of documents. I have discussed the matter with the hon. member for Kamloops, and we have both agreed on the nature of the documents to be tabled if the motion carries.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is carried, subject to the agreement entered into by the two hon. members.



HONEY MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 21-Mr. White (Middlesex East):
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other documents exchanged between the dominion Department of Agriculture and any persons and companies, from January 1, 1955 to date, regarding the marketing of honey in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a statement that was made yesterday in connection with what may be regarded as an invitation by the Soviet government to Canada to send a parliamentary delegation to their country and, I would assume also, to give consideration to the sending of a delegation from that country to Canada.
Your Honour stated that a meeting had been held between yourself and the whips of the parties in regard to this matter. The whips of the parties received a statement that had been issued on February 12 of last year by the supreme soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and also a translation of a message to the Canadian embassy on the same day, which may be regarded as conveying something in the nature of an invitation.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is a matter that requires to be dealt with first of all by the government. I am not suggesting for a moment that the full responsibility rests with the government. I would emphasize, on the contrary, that the ultimate decision should rest with parliament. However, it is not within the knowledge of any of the hon. members, and presumably not within the knowledge of anyone outside the government itself, as to what has taken place between the two governments. There may have been invitations. In fact, I understand from the press reports that a further invitation was extended to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) while he was n Moscow. The consideration of any proposal of this kind also calls for certain govern-nent decisions as to the manner in which ;uch a delegation could be arranged, the time >t which it should be done and, what is of (reat importance, the means of transportation hat would be provided to carry such a deletion to Russia or to any other country.
: therefore submit, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I interrupt the ion. Leader of the Opposition. I do this with ;reat regret, but I am sure he is not aware if the nature of the discussions which took ilace last Friday in my chamber when the hief whips of the four parties represented in his house attended.
The declaration referred to by the hon. .eader of the Opposition, the one which he ays is dated February 9, 1955-


Mr. Rowe:: February 12.


Mr. Speaker:: -was referred to in this house n a few occasions during the last session

and also before the standing committee on external affairs. During the recess the matter was left in abeyance and at the beginning of this session the matter was renewed in the form of a question which was addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Nicholson) which appears in Hansard of Friday last at page 600 and to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
The matter is now before the Speakers of the two houses.
At three o'clock in the afternoon of the very same day a meeting of the whips was called and held in my office and the hon. member who is the chief whip of the party which the hon. Leader of the Opposition leads was present and all the others as well. I think that in fairness to them and in fairness to the hon. Leader of the Opposition I should point out that at that meeting it was agreed that the matter would be studied, that the whips would place the subject matter of that declaration before their caucuses which were expected to be held the following Wednesday, namely today, and that in the meantime nothing other than an insignificant comment was to be given to the press and no other word was to be mentioned about it until the report of another meeting which was to be held after the caucuses in my office was released.
The hon. Leader of the Opposition now refers to the matter in the house and I thought I would interrupt him to inform him of this, because I am sure that if it had been known that the matter would come up in this way, and not in the way suggested at the meeting of the whips last Friday, the other leaders might have been prepared to deal with the matter. But as it is now there is no question before the house to bring up this matter without any notice while the other party leaders and other hon. members may expect it to be brought up, if at all, in a much different way. I thought I would point that out to the hon. Leader of the Opposition.


George Alexander Drew: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was quite aware of the circumstances and, as has been indicated, the matter was referred to me and was dealt with in the way that has been customary in regard to matters of major policy decisions and particularly in regard to matters where knowledge is peculiarly in the possession of the government. I would be very happy to meet with the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to discuss this matter at any time, as I am sure would be the leaders of the other parties.



REFERENCE TO UNITED STATES INVESTMENTS IN CANADA OFFSETTING TRADE DEFICIT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erharl Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer I recently received from the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the effect that the government is not unhappy about our growing trade deficit with the United States, may I ask what assurance the minister can give to the Canadian people that United States investments in Canada will continue to offset our growing trade deficit with the United States?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, in asking his question my hon. friend has stated an allegation which I doubt is correct. I am not sure that United States investments presently are offsetting the current trade deficit. I would point out that the Canadian dollar is still at a premium, which indicates no lack of confidence in financial circles about the present situation. I am aware also that when Canada has a booming economy we have a large trade deficit with the United States and when we are in a depression we have a favourable trade position with the United States. No one seems to be very happy about the latter situation. I suggest that the question should properly be answered by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), but I will say that my answer expresses my own opinion.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, notice of which I have given. Has any change been made in the superintendency of the Prince Albert national park and, if so, what was the reason?


Jean Lesage: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the department to transfer the present superintendent at Jasper to Prince Albert national park. This is according to the policy announced last year of periodically rotating park superintendents across Canada.



INQUIRY AS TO PRICES OF GRADES 4, 5 AND 6

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the reported sale of wheat to Poland, would the minister tell the house how much the prices of grades 4, 5 and 6 wheat have been reduced during the last six months?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Surely that is a question for the order paper.
[Later: ]


William Earl Rowe: In view of the unusually conspicuous caution of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in replying to my first question I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister or the Minister of Trade and Commerce say what prospect there is of making a considerable sale of wheat to Russia at the present time, in view of the visit to our country of the Russian trade officials?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not able to answer that question. The Russian trade delegation arrived here yesterday. I understand they are meeting with officials of the department at three o'clock this afternoon. I suppose that the results of their discussions will emerge in due course, and at that time I will be very pleased to make a statement.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has a decision yet been reached as to what action, if any, will be taken with respect to the report concerning an alleged combine in the manufacture, sale and distribution of beer in Canada? I refer to the report tabled by the minister last June.


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. friend for having given me notice of his question in these terms:
You have probably seen the article that begins on page 7 herein, which is continued on page 28. I am prompted thereby to ask you on orders of the day if you have yet decided what steps to take in connection with the beer combine report.
The reference there is to an article in the February, 1956, issue of the United Church Observer written by Rev. Dr. James R. Mutchmor.
I do not think I can answer the hon. member's question better than to say that I wrote to Rev. Dr. Mutchmor, the author of this article, on December 28, 1955, advising him that the beer report was receiving the most careful study, both within the department and by outside counsel who had been retained in the usual manner to consider it.
758	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry
Having received a further inquiry from Rev. Dr. James R. Mutchmor, I wrote to him again on January 26, 1956, stating that I could add very little to my letter of December 28 except to mention that some delay had been occasioned by the serious illness of the outside counsel whom we had consulted, who had had to undergo a serious operation before he had completed his opinion, and who will be unable to return to the matter for several weeks.
While I am on my feet I think perhaps I should take advantage of this opportunity to correct a statement in this aforesaid magazine article which has been marked by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, I presume. I do not know who else would have marked it. On page 28 of this magazine which was sent to me the following statement, referring to Hon. John Bracken, appears:
He had read the federal government report on the alleged beer combine. He probably consulted with his old friend, ex-premier and now federal justice minister Stuart Garson. The result is the sting in the tail of the Bracken report, namely, the proposal that the Manitoba government, not the Manitoba brewers, fix the wholesale or buying, as well as the selling price of beer.
The reference is to Mr. Bracken. I should like to say that since my old and continuing friend Mr. Bracken was appointed as a royal commissioner by the Manitoba government it just happened that I have not had occasion to speak to him either upon the subject referred to in this magazine or upon any subject whatever.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister made any assessment of the effectiveness of our northern air defences as disclosed by exercise "Crackerjack", and is he in a position to inform the house of his conclusions?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think this is a question for the orders of the day. I should think it would be a question to be dealt with on the estimates. I am not prepared to give a full report on a matter of that kind on short notice.


Mr. Speaker:: I think that the minister is quite right. He cannot answer this question in two or three sentences. He will have to make a statement on the matter later after he has given it study. It is a matter that will have to come up in debate later, not at this stage in the form of a question seeking information.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport if he is yet in a position to answer my question of last Wednesday with respect to whether there have been any representations asking for any change in the matter of flight hours and hours between flights for air-line pilots. Possibly he may also have an answer to the other question that was asked at the same time.


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the question just asked by the hon. member will perhaps enable me to deal with his question and another question asked by the hon. member for York West.
Last week the hon. member for York West asked whether, as the result of the reports made available some time ago with respect to airplane crashes at Moose Jaw and Brampton, I had made a decision as to any changes which might be made in the air regulations to provide greater safety in the air. At the hon. member's request I have delayed answering his question.
In reply to the hon. member I wish to state that no changes in the air regulations have been made since the accidents to which the hon. member referred, but at the same time I should point out that the subject of safety in the air is not one to be dealt with by changes in the air regulations but rather by other action.
It seems to me that in replying to the hon. member's question it would not be suitable for me to take on the orders of the day the time required to deal with the whole subject of safety in the air, but so as to prevent any misconception arising upon this important matter I think I should say that the officials of my department, after the above mentioned accidents, made a thorough and comprehensive review of all aspects of safety in the air and that this matter is constantly under consideration.
Following that review action was taken on a number of matters. It would take too long at this time to relate all that has been done, but I might instance as examples the decision of my department to place orders for a number of surveillance radar sets to be installed at major airports, changes in air navigation orders to provide for vertical spacing between aircraft in flight and to increase the minimum visibility limits for visual flying, the provision of a substantial increase in the number of personnel for air

traffic control and the opening of two schools for the training of this personnel, the completion of the first section of the new visual omni range airway installations and the placing of orders for the remainder of this new airway program, the actual relocation of a section of an airway, the investigation of airborne radar, and the experimental installation of airborne collision lights.
I should perhaps point out to the hon. member that air regulations are not the main medium through which my department acts in these matters, and that if he was referring to regulatory action his reference should have been to air navigation orders. Certain matters connected with the air navigation orders and air traffic controls are still under discussion with the industry.
May I suggest to the hon. member that the whole subject of safety in the air might more appropriately be dealt with when the estimates of my department are under discussion when I shall, if so requested, acquaint all hon. members with the very real efforts that my departmental officials have made to assure safety in the air.
Now, if I may come to the question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with respect to whether representations had been received by myself or by the air transport board asking for any change in the matter of flight hours and hours between flights for aeroplane pilots, I should first tell the hon. member that this is not a matter falling within the jurisdiction of the air transport board and that no representations on this matter have been received by myself, although the whole subject of hours of flight, rest periods, etc., has been reviewed by my departmental officials with individual operators and is under discussion in the international civil aviation organization.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Carlyle Marler: I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception. The ihon. member inquired if assurance could be given that employees of the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland who have received notice of termination of employment, the number of whom he gave as 168, will be re-employed in some other capacity.
The management of the Canadian National inform me that notices of termination of
Inquiries of the Ministry employment have not been sent to 168 employees in Newfoundland. If the inquiry arises from the completion of the dieseliza-tion program previously announced by the railway, the management state that as delivery of diesel equipment commences, possibly next summer, there will be adjustments and reductions in motive power staff over a 9 to 12 month period, but that every effort will be made to place in other railway work the employees affected.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roch Pinard (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Yesterday the hon. member for Saskatoon asked me, as Acting Minister of Public Works, a question regarding Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I had received notice of this question previously from the hon. member for York South who is now confined at home owing to illness, which we all deplore and regret. The question reads as follows:
Is it the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to repossess the homes of men on strike at St. Catharines who, because of the strike, have been unable to meet their payments? If so, how many orders for repossession have already been issued?
In answer to the first part of the question concerning policy, the policy of the government, as followed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in relation to purchasers of houses from the corporation who are temporarily unemployed was outlined by the Minister of Public Works on March 30, 1954. The same policy is now being followed in St. Catharines. As indicated in the statement by the minister at that time, the corporation does not follow a policy of waiving or postponing monthly instalments on a wholesale basis. Each case is dealt with on its merits.
With relation to the second part of the question, I may inform the hon. member that since the strike at the McKinnon Industries plant commenced there has been one cancellation of an agreement for sale, followed by repossession of the property, in the St. Catharines area out of 1,682 agreements. Arrears in this case had accumulated prior to the commencement of the strike. In addition, there has also been one house repossessed from an occupant who could not be reinstated because he did not qualify as a tenant under the corporation's regulations.
At the present time there are 13 orders for repossession in the hands of the sheriff, but action is being withheld on these pending

Inquiries of the Ministry negotiations now going on between representatives of the union and officials of the corporation. It is hoped that as a result of these negotiations the 13 purchasers will be reinstated and a procedure worked out for the handling of other cases involving union personnel that may arise during the continuance of the strike.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Roch Pinard: should like to answer a question asked of me by the hon. member for Peel on January 26. The hon. member asked me whether consideration was being given to increasing the pensions of the superannuated civil servants. As I indicated then to the hon. member, this matter concerns the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and questions relating to the pensions of retired civil servants are more appropriately directed to him since implementation of changes in this respect rests with the superannuation branch of the Department of Finance. In fact, as my hon. friend knows, two similar questions were asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) of the Minister of Finance. One was a written question and the other was an oral question. To those two questions answers were given in the negative by the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is all the Minister of Finance ever says. He just says no.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldl-Melfori):: Arising out of the answer given a moment ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the question asked by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the minister. Can the parliamentary assistant tell us to what levels the Canadian dollar might fall if United States investment in Canada should decline, or even cease?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

On the orders of the day:


Erhart Regier: Might I ask the Prime Minister whether he

is in a position to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker. I should not attempt, even on my birthday, to be a prophet.



HOGS-REFUNDS'IN PURCHASES BELOW FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Castleden (Yorkton):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence I trust he will take it as notice. Are producers who receive less than the floor price for hogs required to apply directly to the Department of Agriculture for settlement of the difference in price?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the question will be taken as notice.



WAYS AND MEANS

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, January 31, consideration of the motion of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Coldwell.

Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the sitting last night I was enjoying the privilege of addressing this house on the amendment to the motion moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell). The effect of the amendments is to express disapproval of this government's policy in authorizing the shipment of arms to the Near East and, in precise terms, its policy in authorizing the shipment of arms to Israel and to Egypt, amounting in 1954 and 1955 to $2,067,685.19 to Israel and $771,121 to Egypt. I pointed out that while the amendments were limited to that precise issue, the issue in fact before the house was a good deal wider and that the issue raised the whole question of the policy of this government in shipping arms to the Middle East and its future policy. I propose to deal with the motions on that basis.
I thought it useful to inform the house in a brief way of the events which transpired resulting in the establishment of Israel as a nation and I recalled the fact that there was the resolution of the United Nations in 1947

authorizing the partition of Palestine, and I mentioned the attacks by the Arab nations in order to prevent the partition from taking place in 1948. The Arabs were unsuccessful in that war against the Israelis who eventually compelled them to sign a truce in 1948; and in August 1949 armistice agreements were signed between Israel and the Arab states. It was out of the crucible of war that Israel was formed. At the time of adjournment I was about to tell the house of the events which have transpired since 1949 between Israel and Egypt. I have mentioned that Egypt has persistently refused to recognize Israel. It will not meet any delegates of Israel except in circumstances in which it cannot be avoided, such as before the United Nations; and it will not negotiate directly with Israel on any of the issues or problems between them.
I now come to the second point dealing with the relations between Egypt and Israel during that period, and I refer to the constant attacks that have been made by the Arab states under the instigation of Egypt upon the territory of Israel. The purpose of these attacks is to terrorize the Israelis because it prevents the settlement and economic development of Israel in the border areas. These attacks are not sporadic or spontaneous ones. They are a matter of calculated policy of the Arab government.
In November, 1952, the Arab representatives on the mixed armistice commission formally declared that border incidents were to be exploited in order to prevent the armistice from being effective. Recently the Cairo radio described the perpetrators of these raids as commandos and heroes in the war against Israel. I call the attention of hon. gentlemen to that expression "the war against Israel''. It throws some light on the attitude of Egypt towards Israel.
Another event of great importance that has taken place during these years is the blockade of the Suez canal by the Egyptians with respect to all ships carrying goods to Israel. That blockade was condemned by the security council of the United Nations in September 1951, and it constitutes a threat to peace and undermines the authority of the United Nations in the Middle East.
Reference has been made in this house to the refugee question. It should be noted by hon. members how those Arab refugees came to be in the area they now occupy outside of Israel. It was not the Israelis who drove out the Arab refugees. It was the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the spiritual head of the Moslems in that area, who instructed the Arabs to leave Israel when the Arabs first declared war against Israel. It was an attempt to disrupt the economy of Israel.
External Affairs
What has been done by Israel about the Arab problem? They have removed the block on the blocked bank accounts of the Arabs who left Israel, and the money has been paid over to the Arabs. They have also agreed to pay compensation to Arab refugees who have left the country for their losses of property.
The Israelis have agreed to participate in an international fund to make contributions to the settlement of Arabs in Arab countries. The reaction of the Egyptian government to this proposal has been a refusal to even discuss the matter with the Israeli government. The hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Crestohl) and the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) have both put before the house statements made by leaders of Arab governments or spokesmen for Arab governments which make it quite clear that the purpose of the Arab governments is to drive the Israelis into the sea. It would only be taking up the time of the house unnecessarily if I were to repeat those statements, because they make quite clear the irreconcilable hostility of the Egyptian government to the Israeli government.
What is the present situation? Up to about September, 1955, there was an uneasy truce in the Middle East between the Arabs and the Israelis. It was an uneasy truce because there was an uneasy balance of arms. In September 1955, the balance was upset by the announcement made to the world that Russia, through Czechoslovakia, was shipping $80 million worth of arms to Egypt. This created a new problem in the Middle East, and was recently described by former president Truman, in a statement to which I shall refer later, as a threat to the peace of the world.
The hon. member for Cartier has dealt very comprehensively with the background of the Middle East problem. This problem is not peculiar to the Middle East alone but is a world problem. The hon. member has sketched very clearly and very convincingly the part that Russia is playing in this difficulty. In fact, Russia has intruded herself into the Middle East and Egypt is the latest pawn in Russia's game.
We know that the minister of external affairs is proposing to hold discussions in the near future with the Prime Minister of Great Britain. If it would not be presumptuous I have some suggestions which I should like to make. Of course, the first suggestion is one that all of us know will be acted upon, and that is that every effort be made by the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada to bring about a settlement of the problems between the Arabs and the Israelis. The minister dealt with the matter in the address


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, this debate has dealt substantially with two subjects, and tion has been directed to the shipment of arms by this government and the relation of that shipment to international affairs. There has also been discussion of the position of communist China and the possible recognition of the government of that country. There has further been a reference by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) to Germany and the situation there, to which I shall refer briefly. There have been very useful and informative statements in regard to the visit by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to Russia and to other countries in the east within the past few months.
I propose today to deal particularly with the subject of the shipment of arms, what that means from the point of view of our international policies, and also what it means in relation to the responsibility of this parliament and the relationship of government to parliament. I intend also to refer to the
External Affairs
subject of communist China, which in fact was the subject which prompted this debate in the first instance, although the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with it very briefly.
The statement made by the Prime Minister in this house was a terrible statement, Mr. Speaker. It was a terrible admission of the way in which this parliament is treated by this government. There are no satisfactory explanations of any kind for the incredible record of evasion, misstatement, hiding of the facts, backing away from earlier statements, and finally the admission that most of the earlier statements had been wrong and that everything that had been done had been done by one man under the mistaken idea that he was doing the wrong thing. I make that last statement for this reason. We now find that the very shipment of aircraft which started this whole debate was done under the authority of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe). We have the statement of the Minister of Trade and Commerce that when he said so emphatically on one occasion there was an order in council he did so believing it was necessary to have an order in council before shipments of that kind could be made. If the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is also the Minister of Defence Production, does not know when orders in council are needed and when they are not, then surely we have the most glaring admission possible as to why the responsibilities now in his hands should not be entrusted to him. If he does not know when an order in council is needed, then how are we to have any assurance whatever that we get the proper information at the appropriate time?
This goes far beyond the question of shipment of aircraft or the shipment of weapons, very disturbing and very serious though tha1 is. This goes right to the root of the whole question of our parliamentary system. From January 11 to January 31, a matter of twenty days, we had a series of differing answers to questions we had asked about the same subject. Now, in the face of that, how are we to know when we can accept any statement of the government? After all, we had the very illuminating statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), nol made to this house but made to anothei gathering in Ottawa, which was duly reported as things are reported in a free press. The Minister of Agriculture offered an example to his associates in his own party of the way in which debate should be conducted. He explained an occasion when he had disagreed violently with the government of Mr Mackenzie King. Nevertheless he finally found himself in a minority and when il came into the house he was the minister whc

External Affairs
presented the argument in support of the fifing in which he disbelieved. The importance of this story is that the minister was offering this as an example of the way things should be done. He said as he came out of the house that he was greeted by one of the ffher members who said, "Jimmie, if you only Delieved in that, what a job you could have lone". The minister went on after that to ;ay, "I gave you this example to show you he way things should be dealt with", or ,vords to that effect.
I am inclined to wonder what the situa-;ion might be if we asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) if he really lelieved what he was saying when he mswered a statement in this house. It might )e contrary to the rules but the fact remains hat we would be justified in asking him that juestion on the basis of his own explanation >f the way in which he conducts the business >f the government in this house. Even with-(Ut that illuminating example at the gathering vhere people were learning a lesson from the ages of the party, which example we now lave before us, the example could not be econciled because right along the front lenches we get different statements about the ame subject, finally winding up with the hing that many of us suspected before, and hat is that it was really a one-man show.
The fact is they all thought it was covered iy an order in council. They now find that he Minister of Trade and Commerce appar-ntly did it without even the ministerial onsultation he had indicated was appropriate mder the circumstances. Has this one minis-sr become the minister of external affairs? Ve do of course remember that for a while e apparently became the minister of justice, 'here are hon. members who will recall the ontrol he exercised over that department nder the Combines Investigation Act. Has ae Minister of Trade and Commerce also ecome the minister of national defence? In lis case he has assumed the responsibility f determining what weapons and arms were eeded in an extremely critical area of the rorld and it is quite obvious from the answers f the Minister of National Defence that he new nothing about it, even less than usual. We therefore find the Minister of Trade nd Commerce substituting himself for the linister of National Defence as well. I do ot know how much farther the influence goes ut, Mr. Speaker, if this is the situation with 'hich we are confronted today surely there i not a single hon. member opposite who in is own mind, regardless of what he may say ublicly, will be in any uncertainty now as ) why we conducted the debate we did last immer. Surely there is not an hon. mem-er opposite who does not now understand 
why we are concerned about too much power being put in the hands of this one minister. We have seen the evidence of what he does with the power he has, and if that minister thought he should have had an order in council and did not bother to have one passed then it is perfectly clear that he would do anything else without an order in council whether or not he should have it. In this case it was only an accident apparently that he did not need one if, in fact, he did not. We do not yet know just what the circumstances were. We have the ingenious explanation that an order in council is needed if it is the government that is sending the arms out, but if it is a private firm sending them out then they do not need the order in council. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the most shocking admissions that we have had in this house in relation to a most delicate and difficult international situation. All that is needed to evade the supervision of this government in discharging its responsibilities is to make sure that arms shipments get into the hands of some private organization, which the government can do; under those circumstances an order in council is not needed and it can be done at the instance of a single minister who does not even remember afterwards to tell the house about what he has done when he is asked a question concerning it.
This is a cynical, outrageous transaction. It did not require 20 days to find out the facts which were finally presented to us.
Yesterday the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) in dealing with this subject had this to say, as reported at page 701 of Hansard:
The Minister of Trade and Commerce, on a question of privilege late Friday afternoon, explained that he had incorrectly referred to an order in council when what he really meant was a ministerial decision with respect to the issue of an export permit for the shipment of Harvard trainers to Egypt.
This was no inadvertent answer, Mr. Speaker; this was a subject that had been before the house for three weeks. This was a subject that had been before the house and direct questions were asked in relation to it. On more than one occasion the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the most emphatic, and I might say offensive terms, chided those who questioned in any way the accuracy of his statement as to the date on which the order in council had been passed.
This raises another question, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has told us that it was a decision by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Now this happens at a time when the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been emphasizing to us the dangers in the Middle East. Those dangers are not

diminishing; we have been told they have been increasing. If ever proof were needed that the time is overdue for the business of the people of Canada to be brought back under the control of this parliament it is right now in the face of these admissions of the past few days. At the very time this was being discussed here, at the very time in fact that the first three aircraft of this order were moving in the Star of Assuan to Egypt, President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Eden were meeting in Washington discussing ways and means of avoiding pressure in the Middle East.
May I remind the hon. member who has just spoken about the denial of arms to Israel. We are talking about the supply of aircraft to Egypt and that is what brought up this whole question before the house. If the hon. member has such heart-burnings about Israel, then let him rise and demand that there be no further aircraft shipped, that the three now on the Star of Assuan be not delivered and that the 12 aircraft still in Canada be held here, and then perhaps his words will have some weight.


An hon. Member:: That is not what the amendment concerns.


George Alexander Drew: I shall talk about the amendment and I shall talk about the shameless pretence there was in regard to the effect of this amendment, too.
Of course I admit that the hon. member for Trinity has had experience serving the government in a legal capacity and perhaps that gave him some special qualifications which appealed to it on this occasion. It was obvious of course that he kept very close to his text but I want to point out-


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Speaker-


George Alexander Drew: The Minister of National Health and Welfare is quite capable of taking care of himself without reading the text of his speeches and it would be a most healthy thing if the statement made by the Speaker last night were to be observed by all the hon. members of this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition-


George Alexander Drew: I am making this speech and I intend to continue.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Leader of the Opposition does not care to be interrupted, the minister may not do so unless he rises on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would just point out to the Leader of the Opposition-
External Affairs


An hon. Member:: He is just pointing out; go ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, it does not appear to be a point of order or a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the Minister of National Health and Welfare rises on a point of order I shall be pleased to listen to him. However, if he does not rise on a point of order he must not interrupt the Leader of the Opposition if the latter does not consent.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I remember one occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: You are just pointing out.


George Alexander Drew: I feel quite sure that the minister remembers more than one occasion.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was just going to say-


Donald D. Carrick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Trinity has risen on a point of order.


Donald D. Carrick: If the Leader of the Opposition is intending to intimate by his remarks that I read my speech it is quite inaccurate-


An hon. Member:: No, he didn't.


An hon. Member:: Every hon. member of this house knows he didn't.


An hon. Member:: He didn't say you did.


William Earl Rowe: It would have been better if you had.


Donald D. Carrick: That will be a matter of opinion. I had rough notes and I shall be very glad to show them to the Leader of the Opposition if there is any doubt about it.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I did not think for an instant that the hon. member read his speech; it was not good enough to have been read.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Alexander Drew: When I said it was not good enough to have been read I should have added that I intend to refer particularly to a statement the hon. member made because I would hope if he had taken the responsibility of preparing his address in advance he would not have made the statement to which I intend to make reference in no uncertain terms.
He made certain references which should not be allowed to pass unchallenged in this house. I do want to point out, however, and I will deal with it right now, that when the hon. member-

External Affairs


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


George Alexander Drew: This is what the hon. member said, as reported at page 743 of Hansard:
I was shocked, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Dlefenbaker) moved an amendment in this manner. I want to read that amendment to the house:
"That ... in view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries in that area not within the NATO alliance . . ."
That is the part I want to deal with. I say 1 was shocked because it constituted a refusal of help to Israel in her hour of need. I never believed that the erstwhile great Conservative party would ever adopt a policy of that kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: I hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin)-


Murdo William Martin: I never said a word.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker-


Murdo William Martin: What I said was that I never saw the Leader of the Opposition in a happier mood than he is at this moment.


William Earl Rowe: He has good cause.


George Alexander Drew: In all the conflicting statements that have been made that at least is a very happy meeting of minds at any rate on one point. However, I do not want to be beguiled by the smiles of the Minister of National Health and Welfare as to what was meant by those words. That was a disgraceful distortion of the facts. It was a shameless appeal to prejudice. It had absolutely no relation to the facts. I only wish that the rules made it possible for me to use stronger terms because the hon. member who introduced that shallow and shameless misinterpretation was dealing with a subject which had been brought into this house by the shipment of aircraft to Egypt. Why did he not say a word about that? Why did he not urge the government to stop the shipment of the remaining twelve if for any reason they could not stop the first three? What a cynical picture we have before us. They ship aircraft to Egypt and then they ship anti-aircraft guns to Israel to shoot them down.
At the very time that this is being done we are paying our respects to the very gallant and effective efforts of General Burns to maintain stability and peace in that part of the world. An appropriate tribute has been paid to what General Burns has done on different occasions. He has achieved the things that he has done in the realm of practical hard negotiation and not by the use of fatuous platitudes such as some of those we have heard in regard to this subject. General

Burns is either doing a job or he is not. I understood that this government believe that he is doing a very good job. I believe he is doing a good job and I am sure most hon. members do. It is a very poor award for his efforts that at the time he is trying to cool off the situation in that area this government should be shipping arms to both sides.
Of all the attempts to hide the realities that I have heard I cannot imagine anything worse than the suggestion that this is not really important because it amounts only to a comparatively few hundred thousand dollars. As everyone knows, we heard the expression, "What is a million?" In this case apparently the expression is, "What is two million?" After all it is not a question of the degree, it is a question of whether the thing is right or wrong. I was never aware that under our laws there was any distinction drawn in the case of murder between murder done with an elephant gun and with a .22 rifle. If it is murder, it is murder just the same. If the thing is wrong, it is wrong, no matter how many are shipped or no matter what the amount may be.
It is at a time when all these difficulties are confronting us that we are told that it is dangerous to fan the embers of distrust and hatred in that area. It is at such a time that we see our government presenting this sorry spectacle of slaphappy diplomacy. After all, where has there been any caution exercised? Where has there been any real responsibility? One minister after another, from the Prime Minister down, tells us a different story and we were finally brought up to date yesterday.
I am reminded of a story told during the first world war. Veterans of the first world war will always remember a fabulous character known as Foghorn MacDonald. He had a voice like a bull of Bashan; it was a real voice which could be heard everywhere. During that war there were certain complaints by the fighting troops about a place in London known as Argyll House. It was a large building with multiple halls where people wrote the innumerable papers that seem to have to get written in every war in quintuplicate and sextuplicate, in fives and sixes. There was a notorious uncertainty as to who was really in authority.
I remember well one of the stories which pleased the troops. It seems that Foghorn MacDonald had gone to Argyll House to find out where his woodpeckers-which was what the forestry troops were popularly called- were to be allowed to cut some trees in Windsor great forest. He went to one place and was told that it was another officer who dealt with the matter. Then he went to

another place and was told that it was somebody else. After he had gone halfway through that enormous building he came down into the middle of the central hall and in a voice that shook the glass at the top he shouted, "Who is in charge of this dump anyway?" I might explain, that is a slightly modified version of the story.
But, Mr. Speaker, it was the final stage of the story that reminded me of what has been happening in the house because as the story went a head came out of every one of the several doors in Argyll House and shouted at the top of its voice, "I am." Will the Prime Minister please take the appropriate steps to let us know who is in charge of these different subjects? If in fact the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) is also Secretary of State for External Affairs, do let us know so that we can address our questions to the proper minister. If he is Minister of National Defence in fact if not in name let us know, so that we can address our questions to him. If in regard to certain matters connected with the Combines Investigation Act authority over that department is once again in the hands of the Minister of Trade and Commerce I hope the Prime Minister will let us know so that any further questions along that line may go to the appropriate minister. It would save a great deal of time. Twenty days have been taken up with a great deal of questioning to get the information that was needed.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remark from my genial friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin) that he finds me in good humour, and I reciprocate that. I constantly find him in good humour. But I do not want any impression left that what we are dealing with here is fundamentally any laughing matter. Confusion at some point can become so ridiculous that it is difficult not to laugh, and it was the very wise Voltaire who said that a serious subject should not be discussed too seriously. Nevertheless, tempting though it may be to point out the preposterous nature of the confusion that has emerged, the question presents itself: Why has the government been hiding the facts? Why has the government been holding back on us? Why did the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) take so long to find out what the facts were? Our whole system depends upon reliable answers by ministers and within an appropriate length of time.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs had every reason to know the facts better than he did when, after several flippant answers on different days, he finally did place before us the situation as he knew it
External Affairs
up to that time. Since then we have had further revised editions from other ministers. But this story is not simply a story of inaccuracy. It is a story of delay. It is a story of uncertainty, it is a story about which we do not yet know all the essential considerations. We certainly do not yet know why it is that this was done.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is as improper a suggestion as has been made in the house for anyone to suggest that at a time when General Burns is trying to compose the difficulties in that troubled area any attempt to prevent the shipment of arms to both sides involved in that difficulty constitutes an attempt to weaken the Israeli government. Anything further from the facts could not be imagined. Anything more unreal could not be devised. The trafficking in arms is either right or it is wrong. Trafficking in the bloody weapons of war is wrong, and it is particularly wrong when it is done in this secret and underhand way.
We have prided ourselves, Mr. Speaker, on the position of detachment of our government and the fact that it was in effect a middle power over and above the ordinary temptations and weaknesses of other nations. We have gained much in international stature from that very fact. That reputation has been effectively removed by the course of the government in this unhappy incident that we have had before us. Trafficking in arms in an area where we are reminded it is terribly dangerous to fan the embers of hatred and distrust! Is it neutrality, is it detachment to supply weapons to both sides? No. We want the security of Israel established in the one way it can be established: it was most improper for the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Carrick) to imply that there had been any suggestion of withdrawal of support from Israel when only in the afternoon the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had so clearly stated the principles by which the protection of Israel could be secured.
What shallow pretence it is to suggest that we are going to help Israel by sending a few arms there! What is going to help Israel is that the nations of the west stand together to say that there shall be no war in that area. Why pretend that Israel, by the delivery of a few weapons, could do more than invite trouble? Why pretend that Israel, by the delivery of a few weapons, could possibly defend itself against the combined Arab states backed up by all the armour being sent from communist countries to that area today?
We know that peace has been saved in different parts of the world. Peace was saved

External Affairs
in Germany not by evasion, not by appeasement, but by direct, clear and emphatic statement. Peace was preserved in Germany by the unqualified statement that if Russia moved at all against West Berlin or Western Germany action would be taken immediately upon that happening. As a result of that there has been peace. As a result of that there can be peace in the years ahead.
There is today peace, a tortured peace it is true, in Korea, not because of appeasement, not because of shipping arms to both sides, not because of shipping aircraft to North Korea and anti-aircraft guns to South Korea. There is peace in Korea today because the United Nations stood firm. They stood together and they protected the freedom of South Korea. That protection stands today and the hope of peace stands with it. That is the way that peace can be preserved in Israel. It is the way peace can be preserved in the Middle East and it is the only way.
No single member of the house from any part of Canada has more clearly demonstrated his affectionate interest in the cause of Israel and his support of Israeli aspirations than has the hon. member for Prince Albert. What he has done was recognized by the unqualified tribute paid to him by those in this country whose blood ties carry their thoughts so closely and so constantly to Israel itself. No; it is not for any hon. member of this house to suggest that the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) would seek to withhold any support for the state which he himself has supported so well by voice, by action and by everything he has done in this house.
Before I proceed to discuss China, I want to deal with the subamendment introduced by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) and which is as follows:
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the .word "alliance" the following words:
"without at the same time making sure that peace in that area would be guaranteed either by the United Nations or by the powers that signed the tripartite agreement of 1950, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France."
Mr. Speaker, we believe that our amendment is perfectly clear and that it leaves no uncertainty as to what it means. It was moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert, seconded by myself and it reads as follows: That all the words after "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"In view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries in that area not within the NATO alliance; and also condemns the government for the lack of candour with which the matter has been dealt with in this house."

Mr. Speaker, we believe that our amendment appropriately sets forward the views we have; and we believe that the subamendment, which would remove certain of the reservations we make in our amendment, would be inappropriate at a time when every effort should be made to smooth out the difficulties in that area, and to prevent by diplomacy and in every way we can the shipment by Russia to Egypt or to any other state the arms that might be used to cause trouble there. We also believe that there should not be, by us or others wherever we can do anything about it, the further shipment of arms that would aggravate an already difficult situation. It is therefore our purpose to vote against the subamendment, although in a general way I support all the views that have been expressed by hon. members of the C.C.F. party in support of our own amendment.
I wish now to speak about the subject of China. Mr. Speaker, that was the subject that prompted me to ask the Prime Minister for a debate on external affairs. On more than one occasion the Secretary of State for External Affairs had publicly left the impression-whether or not that was intended- that Canada was moving rapidly toward recognition of communist China. Whether or not the Secretary of State for External Affairs intended to leave that impression, that was the interpretation placed upon his speeches in British Columbia last summer and that was the interpretation placed upon other statements he has made. It was the interpretation-perhaps erroneously-placed by many people on his article in the magazine Look under date of January 10, 1956. From that statement I am not going to read more than one paragraph which will illustrate something of the reason why a certain amount of concern was expressed. I quote from the article in the magazine Look of January 10 under the title "Are we Losing the Cold War?" and written by the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
We all need to reappraise our cold-war tactics. We need not oscillate so much (as we North Americans are inclined to do) between alarm and optimism. We should have neither chips on our shoulders nor stars in our eyes. This is a time for bold but hard-headed statesmanship, for vigour and vision, where negotiation must not be confused with appeasement, and the positive challenge of competitive coexistence must replace the sense of fear and urgency as the binding element in our democratic coalition.
Then the Secretary of State for External Affairs went on to make certain numbered recommendations. This is recommendation No. 4:
4. We should recognize the fact that the Peiping government, and not Chiang Kai-shek, is in control of continental China and likely to remain so; that

there are basic problems to be settled in the Far East which cannot be settled without the participation and agreement of that government. We can negotiate with Peiping when necessary and desirable without implying approval of that regime or without weakening our opposition to communism.
It may be that too loose an interpretation was put on this statement in the United States and elsewhere, but it was certainly taken to mean that this government was urging the United States to revise their views; and since they had clearly stated those views previously, there would be only one way they could revise their views on this particular subject.
Having regard to that matter and having regard to the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last year, that the time had come for a re-examination of this whole subject, we waited with interest yesterday to see what that re-examination was. Let us see just what it was. As reported at page 710 of Hansard the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated:
We have made this re-examination and we feel that the careful policy we have been following, and are still following, has been the right one: rejecting on the one hand immediate diplomatic recognition but rejecting on the other hand the view that a communist regime in Peking can never be recognized as the government of China.
We certainly waited for the mountain to bring forth a mouse because there is certainly nothing there that gives us any reappraisal of the situation. This is the hard-headed statesmanship, the vigour and vision that we have been waiting for! He tells us simply that we stand exactly where we were. In other words, we do not know where we are. We do not know whether it means recognition or not.
Every now and then we see in the press reports that some well-informed source has stated that Canada is moving rapidly toward recognition. I mention this matter today because, from what had been said, I thought we might have a chance to relate our remarks to some definite statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to communist China. But the fact is that this statement tells us nothing. That was the reason that our amendment did not deal with this matter. We want no uncertainty. We want to know that there is not going to be any recognition before the matter has been presented to this house. I would hope that we shall have from the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent)-in view of certain uncertainties on other recent occasions-the assurance that there will not be recognition of communist China until this subject has been discussed here in parliament and all the views upon this subject have been properly expressed upon it.
External Affairs
I think that is proper and right because a great deal more is involved than mere diplomatic recognition.
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the subject. Unhappily there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about Britain's recognition of communist China some time ago. The present government of China was recognized by the socialist government of Britain. That was their right. It is not for us to enter into debate on a matter that has already been decided. But just so there will be no misunderstanding about the attitude of the present Prime Minister of Britain very shortly after recognition had been given, I want to quote what he said on January 20, 1950.
The far eastern policies of the Atlantic powers and their friends are in a rather dismal tangle. They all apparently intend the same thing, but they are moving at so different a pace that they are jerkily out of step.
The recognition of the communist government in China provides a recent example of this inconsistency, though not the most important. A divergence of view and discrepancy in action between the British and American governments in this instance may even do good if they draw attention in both countries to the need to coordinate their policies without further delay.
As regards actual recognition, there is a fair field for argument on practical, as well as on legal, issues. The decision to recognize is no doubt eventually inescapable, but it is a real misfortune that in this, as in other far eastern matters, we should be acting piecemeal, both within the commonwealth and as between the commonwealth and the United States.
That was a statement by the present Prime Minister of Britain on January 20, 1950. He has never at any time backed away from the implications of that statement when the subject has been discussed. The present government, when it took office, carried forward that policy. On different occasions the present Prime Minister of Britain, as foreign minister, explained why they were continuing it. The reason is quite clear. It is one that is embedded in the traditions of diplomacy of the government of the United Kingdom. Unless there are compelling and in fact overwhelming reasons, one government does not repudiate the decisions of a previous government in the international field. This has provided a continuity of understanding and performance which makes Britain today the bulwark of European stability.


Mr. Nicholson:: The Labour government gave India self government, but that has not changed at all, has it?


Mr. Bell:: You are on a different wavelength.


George Alexander Drew: The Prime Minister of Britain has followed a consistent course, but he has indicated only too clearly the measure of discomfort that has accompanied some of the

External Affairs
things that have ensued. For one thing, they did not get what they thought they were going to get. The Socialist government in Britain obviously thought they were going to unlock the door to trade with China. They did not get anywhere at all. They did not even have diplomatic relations opened up as a result of that humiliating experience.
No, Mr. Speaker; let us not be confused about this. There are reasons why the United Kingdom might perhaps have more cause to be concerned about this than other countries, but let us not forget one thing that the present Prime Minister of Britain emphasized in 1950 and which needs to be emphasized today. It is the vital importance of harmonious action by the great triangle on the Atlantic ocean, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada. Let us never forget the vital importance of this group- associated as they are with NATO and other countries in close fellowship and very close bonds of nationality-understanding where they are going and marching together if that is possible. I, for one, certainly am not going to suggest at any time that the sovereignty of this country should in any way be denied, as is sometimes apparently suggested by this government. I believe that the sovereignty of this country should be asserted on every occasion, whether it is in commercial affairs or international affairs.
But, Mr. Speaker, we would simply be blind if we did not recognize that the great power in the Pacific upon which the whole future of the area depends is the United States. We will only be causing disharmony among ourselves, and wholly unnecessary difficulty, if we do not try to work out our problems in close co-operation. I hope that when the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom comes here he will be in no uncertainty as to the fact that there is a very substantial group of members in this house who certainly do not approve of the recognition of communist China at this time.
So far as that subject is concerned, it can be dealt with and I hope it will be dealt with in a constitutional manner, by presenting it here in parliament. This subject has been under discussion a sufficient number of times for us to want to make sure that we do not find ourselves suddenly in the position where there has been both recognition of communist China and its entry into the United Nations. After all, it is the entry of communist China into the United Nations that is being talked about very largely when we talk about diplomatic recognition.
There are particular reasons why we should move very carefully on this subject of diplomatic recognition. Let us see what

the consequences would be. One of the consequences would be that the communist government of China would immediately have a spy centre here in Ottawa, just as other spy centres have been established. The communist government would be able to follow the activities of nearly 50,000 Chinese here in Canada. If there is one group of people in the whole world who have a historic affection for their family, in fact almost deifying their family, it is Chinese. I hesitate to think what might happen to a lot of Chinese in this country as the result of pressure upon them in regard to members of their families now in China, if we permitted this brutal form of blackmail to be established by recognition of communist China at this time.
Make no mistake about it, the evidence of their brutality is there for everyone to read. The evidence of their brutality is actually in the terms of the resolution adopted by the United Nations, which still declares communist China an aggressor. Why should we even be discussing the possibility of recognition at this time?
The other subject that was mentioned was our self interest. If we are going to reduce this to dollars and cents, let us keep it in perspective. I believe a lot of people are being led to expect that if there were recognition of communist China, suddenly there would be big markets for our wheat and our other food products. Let us remember what are the actual facts. The largest amount of wheat that was ever shipped from Canada to China at any time was in 1926. Our exports of wheat to China for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1926, amounted to $10,146,000. Let us just keep this in perspective. Let us not change our moral attitude in the hope of the recovery of a certain number of dollars.
Then, too, when we are discussing wheat we must remember that there is also flour. I would not want to leave that product out of consideration. The largest export of flour was in the year 1929, a year of high prices. In that year our total exports to China were $12,929,000. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we can trade with China now and we have traded with China since the war despite a change of government. If China wants them and we can convince them they need it, there is nothing to prevent us from shipping commodities to China now. The fact is that we can unquestionably sell anything to China they really want to buy, but it is very questionable whether they are in a position to buy in view of the rigid agreements between them and Russia at the present time.
Well, now, Mr. Speaker, I know there is a great deal of heartburning about this, question

of recognition. As the present Prime Minister of Great Britain said in 1950, it is a debatable subject, and there are different sides to the question. I have made it quite clear that I do not for a moment suggest the time might not come when circumstances would suggest the advisability of diplomatic recognition of China under conditions very different from what they are today. But as it stands at the moment, the communist government of China is 'a declared aggressor; and what is more, they have brought it right up to date.
I could not help thinking of how inappropriate any hint of this was, in view of the statement made by the premier of China, Chou En-lai, only the day before yesterday. In a long statement of policy to the people of China he had this to say-I am quoting from the front page of the New York Times of Tuesday, January 31, 1956-
Premier Chou En-lai of communist China . . . urged all Chinese, including nationalists to work for "peaceful liberation" of Taiwan (Formosa). Nevertheless he said red China was "actively preparing" to take it, "by means of war if necessary."
The premier said communist China wanted peace. He declared, however, it was "also not afraid of war" should, as he put it, "the international aggressive bloc impose war on us."
There is the statement of an aggressive power. The United States has said that she will not stand idly by if Taiwan is attacked, yet we have the premier of China stating that they are going to take it by war if necessary. We should not leave any uncertainty about the fact that while this atmosphere prevails, and until the government of communist China has made clear it intends to follow the course of international decency, we will not even discuss the recognition of that government now or in the years ahead. That may come, as it has in other instances, but under very definitely different circumstances.
I also note there are those who feel that this is something that has to be recognized as a fact. They feel that there is a certain amount of jingoism behind the antagonism to recognition. Let me point out that it has not been generally suggested that the A.F.L. and the C.I.O., which are now united in both the United States and Canada, have been particularly jingoistic. On December 7 this resolution was adopted by a joint meeting of the newly-combined A.F.L. and C.I.O. in the United States. It was the eighteenth of the resolutions passed on that day. The resolution reads as follows:
Our government should firmly adhere to the policy of prohibiting the admission into the U.N. of any regime which (a) has been imposed on any nation by a foreign power, (b) which exercises effective control of the country only through denying its people the fundamental human rights 67509-49J
External Affairs
specified in the U.N. charter, and (c) which is engaged in war or has been found guilty of aggression against the U.N.
There is no uncertainty about it. There is no uncertainty as to what countries it applies to. And just in case we should not feel that this was sufficiently wide in its application, as it dealt simply with the A.F.L. and the C.I.O. in the United States, there was also on December 12, five days later, a meeting of the international confederation of free trade unions in the city of New York. Canadian unions are a member of that international organization. On December 12 they adopted verbatim the resolution which I have just read.


Mr. Philpott:: On a point of order, I am sure the hon. member is aware that both the big Canadian trade union organizations have made explicit recommendations to the government of Canada in the past few weeks calling for recognition of the communist government of China.


Mr. Speaker:: I point out to the hon. member that that is not a point of order.


George Alexander Drew: I have read the resolution which was adopted by the combined A.F.L. and C.I.O. in the United States on December 7, and I have read also a copy of the resolution which was adopted by the international confederation of free trade unions on December 12, 1955.
The statement by Chou En-lai which I read a few moments ago contains one interesting expression. He speaks about urging all Chinese, including nationalists, to work for peaceful liberation. I feel sure that all hon. members will recall the explosive manner in which those same words were greeted by Mr. Khrushchev when they were used in his Christmas message by President Eisenhower. It will be recalled that when President Eisenhower talked about peaceful liberation of the satellite countries, that same Mr. Khrushchev literally blew his top. On December 31 a statement was issued from the President's office, which closed with the definite statement:
The peaceful liberation of the captive peoples has been, is and until success is achieved, will continue to be a major goal of United States foreign policy.
These words are clear enough, Mr. Speaker. The peaceful liberation of captive people will be the policy of the United States government. He was referring to the satellite powers in Europe. Here is an area, the island of Formosa, which the United States has pledged itself to protect; yet the premier of China does not hesitate to use the very same words in a very different way.

External Affairs
Before I close these remarks, Mr. Speaker,
I want to emphasize my belief that first things come first. The speech from the throne pointed out that arms alone would not defend our cause; that the moral issues were the great issues, and that in large measure it was by our moral strength that we would attain our objective. I certainly subscribe to that belief.
I therefore ask hon. members to recall why it was we went to war in 1939. It was because the freedom of Poland had been challenged by aggression. We then went to war to assert the principle that every nation should have the right to determine its own course by its own free choice.
Poland is not free. Poland is enslaved; so is the Ukraine; so are Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Rumania and the Baltic states. All these nations are enslaved. All these nations have been denied what was implicit in the charter of the United Nations, signed ten years ago last spring in San Francisco, that every nation should have the right to express its opinion on the kind of government it wanted.
Mr. Speaker, before we start talking about permitting communist China to enter the United Nations, let us urge that at the United Nations there be a demand that a free vote be taken in the satellite countries under the supervision of the United Nations, so the people there may determine the kind of government they want. That is the kind of peaceful liberation the President of the United States has been talking about in the speeches he has made.
It is not enough to say this would not be accepted. If it would not be accepted, then Russia is not living up to the spirit of the United Nations and the sooner it is put on the record the better. But before we start any course that would bring aid, comfort and help to the communists let us be sure that we maintain our moral position, and that we remember our obligation to those hundreds of millions of people now enslaved who should have the right to state what kind of government they want under a free vote fully supervised by all the members of the United Nations through their appointed body.
This debate will terminate very shortly, Mr. Speaker, and before it concludes there are two things which I hope the Prime Minister will undertake to do. First I hope he will give an unqualified undertaking that there will be no further trafficking in arms such as we have discovered through the disclosures of the past two weeks; and second, we should have the assurance that there will be no recognition of communist China until the subject has been

brought before this parliament and fully debated in a proper democratic manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. In view of the importance of this debate, and in view of the fact that the rules have permitted several speeches to be made without a time limit, I wonder if consideration could be given by the house under the direction of the Prime Minister to adding another day to the debate-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -in order that some of the many members, including Liberals, who would like to speak might have an opportunity of doing so.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, having spoken already in this debate and having no intention of speaking again in it, I should like to support that suggestion. I believe this is one of the most important debates we have had, and I doubt if we will have a more important debate. It has been made important by a number of the matters brought forward, and I think there would be approval both inside the house and outside of it if a continuation of this debate were approved.


Mr. Speaker:: In order not to take the time which remains in case the decision should be contrary to that which is being proposed, may I suggest that this matter be dealt with through the usual channels.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity of speaking now, in view of the long statement that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition to which I should reply, and in view of the somewhat challenging suggestion-although it was a friendly challenge-made by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) that this debate should not end without hearing again from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am very glad to have the opportunity of meeting his wishes in that regard.
I should first say something, Mr. Speaker, about the matter which was dealt with by the Leader of the Opposition in the last part of his speech, namely the situation in regard to our relationship with communist China. He has asked the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to give a specific assurance that no action will be taken in regard to the recognition of that government without an opportunity being provided for parliamentary debate.
No doubt the Prime Minister will deal with that matter in due course but I would ask the Leader of the Opposition what we are

doing now if we are not debating the subject of recognition of the communist government of China. He has just debated it at some length, and I mentioned it yesterday. He has also debated it on other occasions in this house. In spite of all our discussions, as I said yesterday and as the Leader of the Opposition affirmed this afternoon, it remains a difficult, complicated and controversial question. It is not wise to be dogmatic in regard to it.
The Leader of the Opposition is himself a very good proof of the difficulty of coming to dogmatic conclusions in regard to this matter because he himself-and I am not criticizing him for it-has found it difficult as others may have also, to adopt a strictly consistent course in his public utterances as to what should or should not be done.


An hon. Member:: What about you?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On June 6, 1955 as reported in the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph, the Leader of the Opposition in a press interview said:
Of red China, Mr. Drew said it should never be admitted to the United Nations.
"Never" is a pretty irrevocable word, Mr. Speaker. In Vancouver on September 21, 1955, he said, as reported in the Vancouver Daily Province:
There is no point talking about red China getting into the U.N. when there are other nations we have refused.
At Quebec last June he is reported as having said, and I think this is a very true statement-


George Alexander Drew: I was not in Quebec last June.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, I have before me an article from the Quebec Chronicle-Telegraph dated June 6, 1955-


George Alexander Drew: I am sorry; I correct that statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, it is easy to forget these little details.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to make it clear that when I made that interjection I was reminded of the debate that was taking place here and I recall I took a week end off in Quebec at that time.


An hon. Member:: To go fishing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that occasion, and I certainly do not quarrel with this statement, he said:
It is a debatable question whether or not it (red China) should be recognized.
External Affairs
It is a debatable question, and we gave our views concerning it yesterday.
In September, 1955, in Vancouver, in a statement to the Victoria Canadian Club, the Victoria Daily Colonist reports the Leader of the Opposition as having told his audence:
He believed the time for recognition and admission to the U.N. of red China was not here yet.
He is also reported in this press statement of that date as having said:
Trade with red China should be on a practical business basis, not on a diplomatic level.
I am not quarreling with these statements this afternoon. It is not an easy question on which to come to definite conclusions, and it is certainly not wise in discussing it to use the word "never".


George Alexander Drew: Nor has it been used.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There were, however, three points raised yesterday in the statement I made about China which were pretty definite; and while we have heard a good deal from hon. gentlemen opposite about recognition, we have heard nothing from any of them in regard to those two statements which did lay down a declaration of government policy on which it would be very helpful indeed to have the views of hon. members opposite.
One was a declaration of non-intervention in the dispute for the possession of the offshore islands between the mainland of China and Formosa. There has been no statement that I recall made in this debate about the attitude of the opposition toward that matter. The second was that we had no commitments in regard to Formosa except those which would arise out of our membership in the United Nations. I have heard nothing about that. The third was that the status in regard to Formosa should be separated from that in regard to continental China. That is an important point about which we have heard nothing from the other side. As my hon. friend has interjected already, there is a very important difference of opinion on that. As a matter of fact about the only thing on which the two Chinese governments are united is that Formosa or Taiwan does belong to China.
I am not going to say anything more on this subject because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the house. In any event the amendment does not deal with China; the amendment deals with something else, arms shipments to the Middle East. In so far as the official opposition is concerned the debate has ranged largely around that particular question.
In the debate and in the attacks that have been made on the government in regard to

External Affairs
this matter some hard words have been used in describing government policy, such as confusion, delay, inaccuracy, fumbling, forgetfulness and words of that kind. I suggest that some of those words could very well be applied to the statements made in regard to this matter by hon. members opposite. I shall give one or two examples in order to justify that assertion.
It has been said, for instance, not only in the previous discussion of this matter but this afternoon, that the delay on my part in replying to the original question was unseemly and probably deliberate because it was so long. I had the first question on this matter on Wednesday. As I said the other day, the reply was ready by Friday but other questions had been asked in the meantime. On Friday I was asked not to give the reply on Monday because the hon. member who had asked the question would not be in the house. I gave the answer on Tuesday. Is that any cause for suspicion as to the intentions of the government?
There have been suggestions of confusion and inaccuracy. Let me give a good example of such from the statement made by the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). I had been discussing the question raised by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker), of the equalization of visits between Egypt and Israel. But the hon. member for Kamloops referred to that as though we had stated that our policy was the equalization of arms shipments between Israel and Egypt. There could hardly be a more inaccurate representation of a discussion in the house than that.
Now I come to inaccuracy in figures. We have a statement that shipments of arms to Israel in the last two years amounted to $2,800,000. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) had the list before him and all he had to do was to look at it to see that he was about 25 to 30 per cent incorrect.
The fact is that in connection with this matter of arms shipments all the information asked for has been given. More information in regard to this particular question of arms shipments has been given than is the case in Washington or London. There was a debate on this matter in the United Kingdom the other day. My hon. friends opposite are very often, and rightly so, keen to point to the example of the mother of parliaments in respect of procedures which could well be followed here. In that arms debate in the United Kingdom the minister responsible said that no details could be given because it was contrary to all practice to disclose what was going from government to government in the way of arms shipments.

It is also a fact that our controls are as strict as if not stricter than those of other countries. It is also a fact that exports are very carefully watched, and the figures that have been given publicly indicate that practically nothing has gone to any Middle East country since the deterioration of the position last July. The figures show that in the last two years the total shipments of arms and equipment to all parts of the world except NATO countries and those commonwealth countries which are not sensitive areas totalled under $6 million.
I know this debate has concentrated on this question of arms shipments. A more important feature is the question of policy in regard to this matter. Here the issue is clear, very clear indeed. We are quite happy on this side to stand our ground on the difference in policy that has come into the open in the amendment submitted by the official opposition. In regard to arms shipments that issue of policy is clear. I confess that I was not able to understand, however, what the issue is between us in regard to the Middle East problems generally. I shall come to that a little later and endeavour to show that the proposals put forward by hon. members opposite in that regard really make confusion more confounded. They deserve some of the words we have heard used so often during this discussion.
As to arms shipments, the policy as laid down in the amendment is clear. If I can read English at all it advocates a complete embargo on the shipment of arms to all Middle East countries not members of NATO, to Arab countries as well as to Israel. As was pointed out by my hon. friends opposite yesterday, that part of the world is now an area of tension.
Indeed the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) would go further than the amendment of his own party, when he advocated in his statement last night a complete embargo against shipments to all such areas of tension except commonwealth areas, NATO areas and those with which we have a definite alliance. Those were the words he used, "a definite alliance".
That is perfectly clear; that makes it clear beyond any doubt what the intention of this amendment must be. The proposal of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich in effect means a refusal to sell any equipment to certain countries, not only Egypt and Israel but to certain countries in the Baghdad pact or in the SEATO pact, two collective security systems which are being developed against aggression and which the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich rightly called, in the case of the Baghdad pact, a "defensive grouping."

Is that the policy of my hon. friends opposite? Is that the policy of their party? If so, it is not the policy of this government.
However, the amendment itself does not go so far as that. It would have the effect, and I am quite certain that this is the only interpretation that could reasonably be placed upon it, of putting an embargo on the shipment of arms to either side of the struggle in the Middle East, to the Arab states or to Israel.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition stated very vigorously indeed that the refusal to ship arms to Israel at this time would not hurt Israel. I ask him to get in touch with the government of Israel to find out what that government is saying about the importance of arms shipments, or to learn about the requests which have been made to governments in the world by the government of Israel for defensive equipment. Then I wonder if he will come to the same conclusion, that an embargo on arms shipments to Israel at this time to Israel would not hurt that country.
The reason given for this amendment, and the reason for this policy of stopping shipments, is that this area which I have just mentioned is one of tension. Indeed it is one of tension, and it is even one of danger. The area of Palestine and the surrounding countries, as I tried to point out the other day, has been one of tension since Israel was established, since the very first day the state of Israel was set up. Indeed, the tension has never been as great as it probably was in those early days when Israel was fighting for its new existence. There has been no peace there at any time since the United Nations sponsored state was formed. There has never at best been anything but an uneasy armistice, when one side has expressed its determination to try to destroy the other.
It follows, then, that if this policy which is now advocated, that is an embargo on shipments to this area as an area of tension, had been adopted by other countries during these years, Israel would have been extinguished almost before it had come to life. I am sure no hon. member in the house would desire that result to be achieved, and that is certainly one important reason why the government will not support any amendment of this kind.
The hon. member for Prince Albert said yesterday afternoon, and I am sure he was quite sincere when he said it, "I believe with all my heart that the state of Israel should be preserved." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the policy embodied in the amendment would have been a very bad way indeed to preserve it in the past or, indeed, to preserve it in the
External Affairs
future. The effect of this policy, if it were adopted by other countries as well as ourselves, would simply be this. The communist countries could keep on sending modern arms and equipment to one side and the countries of the free world would be prevented from sending arms to the other side.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow a question? He has been very fair. In tonight's Ottawa Journal there is a dispatch from Washington indicating that President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Eden discussed today the possibility of using United Nations forces in demilitarized zones along the Arab-Israeli frontiers, and suggesting that Canada and the Netherlands may be in favour of the suggestion I made yesterday, namely the formation of such a force. Is that a fact?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was going to come to that in the latter part of my statement when I deal with other matters than arms shipments to that area. I quote also what the hon. member for Prince Albert said yesterday, that the people of Israel are a dedicated people, as indeed they are. If they were not a dedicated people they would not have been able to do what they have done in that land of Palestine. But I do suggest with all respect that if the policy set out in the amendment had prevailed over recent years they would have been dedicated to destruction. I can think of no greater encouragement to aggression than the knowledge that communist arms can go to one side without restriction or restraint, and that all the rest of us in the free world by self-denying ordinance would not send anything to the other side.
In case they think I am misrepresenting the policy of the official opposition, and I want to be very fair about this, I should like to quote again what the hon. member for Prince Albert said yesterday when he seemed to introduce a kind of reservation into his earlier observations. He said, as found at page 722 of Hansard:
If conditions worsen there-
Not if they get better but if they worsen. -we can change our policy.
Well, how? What was he referring to? Apparently he was referring to the shipment of arms, because later in the same part of his speech he said, as found on page 723:
If conditions got worse and war broke out, then conditions as to the shipment of munitions would change . . .
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they would change, but it would be too late for the change to be made effective to help the state of Israel. I repeat that this is not our policy. Because we have sent some surplus equipment to


John George Diefenbaker: Those three countries are bound by a declaration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I now want to deal with the other side of the question, namely the political side. It is related to but is even more important than the question of arms policy, because it deals with ways and means of establishing peace in that area.
Yesterday the hon. member for Prince Albert-I think it was he-said that we must face this problem, that is the problem of securing peace in the area, courageously and manfully. Just for a moment I want to look at some of the suggestions the opposition have made which would carry out that wise injunction. The hon. member then went on

to say-and I think I am quoting him correctly; he also referred to this matter a moment ago when he interrupted me-that we should set up an international force to protect and assure the boundaries. What boundaries? There are no boundaries established in that part of the world now except under the armistice agreement; and the Arab states have been firm in their determination not to accept those boundaries which have not yet been finally and formally ratified at a peace conference. Hence any guarantee of the existing boundaries would have to be done against the will and in the face of the opposition of the Arab states.
Surely my hon. friend does not wish us to guarantee boundaries against one party to the dispute through the operation of an international police force which might, in certain circumstances, include Canadians as well as other members of the United Nations. I suggest that would not be a realistic way of assisting in the restoration of peace in that area. But a police force under the armistice commission, to keep the forces apart while a peace solution is being sought, to patrol a zone between the forces is something else.


John George Diefenbaker: It is the same thing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: As I said the other day, I have had talks with the leaders of the Arab governments and the Israel government, and I had talks with General Burns when I was out there and at the United Nations. I think there is a great deal to be said for trying to bring that kind of police force into existence in this disturbed area at this time as a provisional measure to keep the armies apart while peace can be secured. If that proposal were made-and I know the Secretary General has been considering it, and from press reports to which my hon. friend has referred I understand that it has been discussed in Washington in the last few days- and if it became a matter for United Nations consideration, I am sure this country as well as other countries would want to do what they could to carry it into effect.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the minister goes on from there, would he answer a question?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not the touchy sensibilities of some of these interrupters. The question I want to ask the minister is this. Does Canada along with the Netherlands intend to undertake such action, which is similar to what I suggested yesterday?
External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no proposal of the kind made to this government. I do not know about the Netherlands government, but if and when a proposal of that kind is made to us, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that it will be given serious and sympathetic consideration by the government. But obviously I should not be expected to state what the position of the government would be in respect of a proposal which has not been made and which has appeared only this afternoon in the press.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) also discussed this question of a guarantee against aggression. He said that we should join in the kind of guarantee that was embodied in Mr. Dulles' statement last summer and Sir Anthony Eden's statement in November at a Guildhall banquet in London. He also mentioned the tripartite declaration. The tripartite declaration of 1950 has something to say about this matter. One paragraph of it reads as follows:
The three governments take this opportunity of declaring their deep interest in and their desire to promote the establishment and maintenance of peace and stability in the area and their unalterable opposition to the use of force or the threat of force between any of the states in that area. The three governments, should they find that any of these states are preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would consistently with their obligations as members of the United Nations immediately take action both within and outside the United Nations to prevent such violation.
As I have said, that paragraph has recently been reaffirmed both by the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and the Secretary of State of the United States. In this regard Mr. Dulles only the other day-and by the other day I mean the statement he made some weeks ago in Washington-said this:
If other related problems could be solved, the United States would be disposed to join formal treaty arrangements to guarantee Israeli-Arab borders; he hoped that other countries would join in the guarantee and that it would be sponsored by the United Nations.
He then went on to say that permanent borders must be negotiated and some adjustments would be necessary before they would enter into a guarantee of that kind. In November last Sir Anthony Eden also said this:
The United Kingdom would also participate in a guarantee of Israeli-Arab borders which were drawn as a result of a negotiated settlement.
That is a different thing than taking part in a guarantee of borders which have not been negotiated as the result of a peace settlement. Even this kind of an offer was not taken up at the time it was made, as I recall it, by either side to the dispute out there. But, Mr. Speaker, we have already supported that

External Affairs
principle in public. I have already stated that we should rally around and support this approach to the problem made by Sir Anthony Eden and by Mr. Dulles without, of course, subscribing to all the details of the statements they made at that time.
I said something about this matter in the house on January 24. Indeed, I devoted a good deal of attention to the principles which should underlie a peace settlement in that area, which is by far the most important aspect of this whole question. To hon. members opposite who have brought this matter up for discussion I suggest they should have another look at that statement. But that kind of guarantee of borders of a state resulting from a peace settlement is a very different thing than the policy enunciated by my hon. friend opposite yesterday and by my other hon. friends who preceded him. To ask us, as my hon. friend did last evening, before a peace settlement has been reached, to let it be known that we will send troops to that area if the armistice is broken and war breaks out, to make that pledge now is in my opinion completely unrealistic. I suggest that this government would be extremely unwise to give a pledge now that if war broke out in that area in any circumstances, if the armistice were broken, we would send troops to fight there.
If that sort of thing happens it is a matter for the United Nations, which should act swiftly and effectively. It is a matter principally for the big powers who have the most important interests in that area. As was said by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon, if that kind of swift international action cannot be taken, and if some kind of international planning to prevent that action cannot be taken now, then the outlook for peace in that area is not too bright. But as I said the other day, I feel that the leaders of the governments there do not want war and that, in view of that feeling, with strong action on the part of the United Nations and the international community to avoid it, war can be prevented. I think our record on this subject in the past is sufficient evidence that we shall play our full part in any United Nations action of that kind, and that we shall do our full duty in that respect.
Now, before I sit down I want to say just one word about the C.C.F. subamendment. It repeats part of the official opposition amendment, that part of it which we cannot possibly support because it is contrary to the policy which has been adopted by and still remains as the policy of our friends who are doing their best to settle this problem. We cannot,

therefore, support the first part of the amendment. The subamendment says that after the word "alliance" the following words should be added:
Without at the same time making sure that peace in that area would be guaranteed either by the United Nations or by the powers that signed the tripartite agreement of 1950, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France.
I fear, Mr. Speaker, that the effect of this subamendment would be to effectively prevent any help going to any country in that area until these conditions were met, even if there were threats by aggression. It would have, I think, the same effect as the amendment itself, because I do not see how we as a government could take the responsibility of refusing to take action which we might think wise in the circumstances unless we had already made sure that peace in that area was guaranteed by the United Nations or some other governments.
While I appreciate the spirit behind this amendment, and while I agree that the United Nations and the three powers concerned should take action in that sense, I do not think it would be wise to tie that subamendment to the official opposition amendment, and we cannot support it for that reason. Certainly we can have nothing to do with the amendment itself which would run counter to what we think is a wise, careful and constructive policy in this whole matter.


Mr. Pearkes:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs said the figures that I had given regarding the cost of equipment were inaccurate, and were at least 30 per cent wrong. On page 741 of Hansard for January 31, 1956, after enumerating the equipment which had been sent to Egypt and to Israel, I said that the total came to $2,800,000. It was that figure which the minister said was inaccurate.
The only source of information I had regarding the cost of this equipment was the statement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself, which is found on page 466 of Hansard for January 24, 1956. These are the figures which I took. The figures for the two years were $2,067,685.19 for Israel and $771,121 for Egypt. If one adds those two figures together the total is $2,838,806. If I was inaccurate, if my figures were 30 per cent wrong, they were the figures which were given by the minister.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not like the hon. gentleman to think I deliberately accused him of inaccuracy unless I had some evidence to support my statement. There may be some misunderstanding, but let me read, because I think it is right that it should be

on the record, what he said. On page 741 of Hansard he began a paragraph by saying, "Then"-Pie had been talking about shipments to Egypt and then he went on:
Then, Israel had been sent anti-tank equipment; 75-millimeter shells; tracks and spare parts for tanks.
He went on to itemize the equipment, and then there was this sentence:
The total came to over $2,800,000-
Naturally he was talking about shipments to Israel.


George Randolph Pearkes: No, no.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my hon. friend says he
was talking not about Israel, as mentioned in that paragraph, but about Egypt with which he had dealt in the previous paragraph, and intended to cover both, then it is entirely accurate. If it is read as I think it should be read in relation to Israel, then there is a mistake.


George Randolph Pearkes: I would just say I was not reading my speech and I did not paragraph it. I am certainly not responsible for the paragraphing. However, "total" means but one thing and I had made no break in the description I had given.


Mr. Colin Cameron'(Nanaimo):: I feel rather in the position of someone who has come in to add a postscript to a letter that has already been written. It will be, I hope, a modest postscript and perhaps avoid some of the colour that has crept into the main body of the discussion.
I have no wish to associate myself with the rather extravagant descriptions of government ineptitude we have heard from this side of the house. I cannot help thinking that to have the opportunity of earning the dramatic and colourful title of "merchant of death" at such a cheap rate as our government apparently has is almost an irresistible opportunity. I believe we have to place this on a more pedestrian basis. I believe also that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to be reminded that this matter arose over a very small shipment of arms, not to the state of Israel about which he expressed such concern a few moments ago, but to one of the possible aggressors against the state of Israel.
I think we have to look realistically at this situation. I cannot for the life of me reconcile two of the statements the minister made within the last half hour. On the one hand, Mr. Speaker, he denounced the suggestion of the official opposition that Canada should be prepared to send forces to guarantee the existing boundaries between the Arab states and Israel without having primarily some indication of what the great powers, who 67509-50i
External Affairs
have a greater interest there, are prepared to do. He said that on the one hand, but then dealing with the subamendment that came from this group he told us he could not support that because it meant that we would have to wait until a decision had been made by the United Nations or by the great powers, and that therefore it would hamper our opportunity to take independent action if we thought fit to do so.
There are some inescapable facts with regard to the situation of Israel. One has been mentioned in this house, and that is the disparity in numbers between the inhabitants of Israel and inhabitants of the surrounding Arab states, a disparity of 30 to 1. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we are deluding ourselves if we imagine that by arming the state of Israel, to the limited extent that Canada could arm her or even to a much greater extent, we could help Israel overcome that initial disparity.
I am well aware, sir, of the ominous, in fact one might almost say sinister, parallel that can be drawn between the present condition in which Israel finds herself and the condition in which the republic of Spain found itself in 1936. I suggest that analogy could be stretched too far; that there was an opportunity, had there been shipments of arms into Spain, for that country to have resisted the forces brought against it. I suggest there is no such opportunity offered today for the state of Israel.
Therefore the subamendment we have moved to the Conservative amendment is a valid attempt to place this on a realistic basis. The only security the state of Israel can hope for must be a security based on guarantees and action by the United Nations or by the tripartite powers. For Canada to dabble even to the extent to which she has dabbled in the sale of arms to either side is not going to improve Israel's final position, but may very well muddy the waters there which should be clarified by United Nations action. It is for that reason that we in this group are hoping that the Conservative opposition-though this hope is very doubtful since the speech of the Leader of the Opposition-will accept our sub-amendment to their amendment and place this whole situation on a realistic basis.
I am not unmindful of the position of Israel, particularly as a member of this group; for there is no group in this house that has closer ties with the state of Israel than this group. The philosophy that motivates the government of Israel is very much akin to the philosophy that motivates this particular group in this house, and for that reason we are even more closely and personally concerned with the fate of the state of Israel

External Affairs
than are others in this chamber. I think we shall be serving not the cause of Israel but the cause of world conflagration unless we formulate our policy on the grounds of United Nations action and guarantees in that area.
It is all very well to say that the boundaries have not been finally drawn. There is only one body under whose aegis those boundaries can be finally drawn, and that is the United Nations. I would hope that this government would pursue some of the conversations that were hinted at this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and not attempt to play a not important and perhaps extremely irritating role in the way of shipping arms to the Near East.


An hon. Member:: The honest broker.


Colin Cameron: The honest broker, as an hon. member to my right suggests. I have an idea that in the case of arms there are not very many honest brokers. I think we had better devote our attention to being honest negotiators and an honest pressure group with the United Nations seeking a final solution to this problem.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with a wider range of our policy than is represented by the particular sore spot in the Middle East which the Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out to us. Other nations have a greater interest there than we have. We have interests in other parts of the world that are perhaps just as serious as those in the Middle East.
Not long ago, sir, I was reading a recent biography of Canada's first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald. I was struck with the immense, in fact gigantic strides this country has made along the path toward recognition as an independent power speaking for herself in the world in the 89 years since this nation was established. Perhaps the measure of that lengthy travel can be found in the contrast between our situation in 1880, only 76 years ago and within the lifetime of many Canadians now living, when our first prime minister succeeded in establishing in London over the opposition of a very reluctant British government the first official representative of Canada abroad, and our position today when we have a chain of embassies and legations stretching throughout the world, dealing with all, or almost all, of the other nations of the globe.
But during the time we have been reaching that position, other changes have been taking place. Just at the time Canada has reached the position where she can speak and deal independently with other nations on her own initiative, the relative importance of those other nations has been declining, and
[Mr. Cameron (Nanaimo) .1
declining for a very simple reason: the simple reason being that unhappily enough the world continues in a situation in which the final card in the game of international relations still remains the resort to arms.
Small powers and middle-sized nations in the world are aware that in the event of that catastrophe overwhelming the world, each of them must find its place in the train of one or other of the giant powers. We all know that. We know something else, too, in Canada. We know that in that event Canada is irretrievably committed to the United States side in any quarrel, both for motives of self-interest and inclination. I imagine that the close bonds between Canada and the United States in the form of a common language, a common political inheritance and largely integrated economies must appear more striking to those outside of North America than they are to those who dwell on this continent.
I think that creates a situation for which we should be profoundly grateful, because there can be no illusions in the minds either of our potential allies or of our potential enemies that it is possible to break that partnership in North America, and it affords us therefore an opportunity to speak bluntly and plainly when we consider that United States policy is mistaken or dangerous without in any way endangering those solid links on which our partnership is based. I feel we are very fortunate in that this partnership is founded on such solid foundations, and not on the rather precarious basis of treaties or formal alliances.
But I sometimes wonder whether we have not fallen victim to the rather adolescent wish to be loved by everyone. When I hear the ministers and other members of the house pointing with pride to the immense respect in which Canada is held throughout the world, I cannot help wondering whether we have fallen victim to the wish to be the little friend of all the world. I should like to remind the government of Canada that we all know the fate of the man who seeks always to avoid giving annoyance to anybody. He winds up by exasperating everybody. I have in mind a number of cases in which it seems to me that this rather immature desire to be approved and loved has hampered the conduct of our external affairs.
The first of these I want to deal with is the one that was dealt with at some length this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, namely the question of our relationship with the de facto government of China. I think all of us have known since last year, following the return of the Prime Minister from his world trip, that the Prime Minister

and his colleagues are fully aware of and fully awake to the realities of the situation. They have realized that we must eventually face facts, however much we may dislike them.
After the Prime Minister spoke in this chamber-and I may say he spoke in a most forthright manner-on this subject, there could be no doubt in our minds as to where he stood, and in all probability where his colleagues stood, on this vexed question. They knew. They know today that eventually this has to be done.
Now, I wonder-I am not able to say; I have no means of knowing-just what are the considerations that prevents our government following the dictates of its own analysis of the situation and its own common sense. I am reminded that at the present time, probably this very afternoon, in the city of Washington, Sir Anthony Eden is in the process of having conversations with the President and the Secretary of State of the United States. It is reported that one of the matters that will be discussed is this vexed question of the recognition of red China. Despite what the Leader of the Opposition had to say earlier this afternoon, I have seen no indication in any published statements by members of the present British government that they are at all inclined to reverse the action taken by their predecessors in office. I have, on the other hand, through the reading of British periodicals of all political flavours, reached the conclusion that the British government and the British people are impatient with the irrational approach to this question of our United States friends and I am sure that Sir Anthony Eden today would be extremely grateful if in his dealings with the United States authorities he had behind him a forthright declaration on the part of the Canadian government.
I was surprised this afternoon to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggest that recognition of China would be a very bad bargain. I thought it was rather a commercial basis on which to put our decision on this question. I gather that if we were able to sell unlimited quantities of wheat to red China we would be prepared to overlook their immoralities. I do not like to put it on that basis. I like to put it on the basis of the actual facts in the world today.
I was very struck last year when in Ottawa I accepted the invitation of one of the other Asian governments-a friendly government- to attend a showing of pictures of the Bandung conference. I was particularly struck, as I am sure were any hon. members who attended, by the way in which the commentator commented on the arrival of each delegate to that conference. There were a number
External Affairs
of delegates there from smaller countries not represented in the United Nations, and in announcing each of them the commentator said, "The delegate for such and such a country, representing so many people not represented in the United Nations". Finally, of course, the representative of China arrived and with particular emphasis the commentator, who was acting as a spokesman for this friendly government, emphasized this fact by announcing the representative of the repub. \c of China, representing 400 million people not represented in the United Nations.
Those are some of the facts in the matter we had better keep in mind when we talk about capturing the support of the uncommitted areas of the world. We have to remember that due to our past deplorable conduct-and I am speaking now of us as a white race-all the actions of the white race are objects of the deepest suspicion to the peoples of Asia. Coupled with their impatience at the refusal to recognize the de facto government of China as such, there will also be the gnawing feeling in the back of their minds that one of the reasons we treat those 400 million so cavalierly is that they are not members of the now declining dominant race of the world.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should add that I quite agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs that any decision we make with regard to communist China must not be taken as covering the situation with regard to Formosa. I have an idea that perhaps the Formosan people will look with an equally jaundiced eye upon Mr. Chou En-lai and Mr. Chiang Kai-shek, and will quite likely wish to decide their own future by themselves. I feel that should be made quite clear before any question of the recognition of China comes formally before the United Nations. It should also be made clear that the people of Formosa should be left under the United Nations aegis to decide their own fate.
There is another matter in which it seems to me the government has failed to take advantage of this unique relationship we have with our largest neighbour. It is a matter which I and several other hon. members have raised repeatedly at intervals dining the past few years. That is the question of the continuation of the thermonuclear tests in the Pacific.
It appears to be pretty well established that these tests are unnecessary as a means of adding in any material way to the military strength of the west. As one rather caustic physicist put it, "They have enough now to blow up the whole world. Do they also want to blow up Mars?" I am aware, of course,

External Affairs
that one of the excuses given for the continuation of the tests is that they provide valuable data with regard to defence against such weapons. I take leave to doubt the validity of that argument, because any data gathered in the far Pacific is not going to be particularly applicable to the case of a bomb dropped on a major city in North America.
There is also another question which I think our government should be considering in this connection. These tests constitute a definite breach of article 73 of the charter of the United Nations, which imposes upon member nations who are in control of non-selfgoverning territories, including trusteeship territories, the obligation that the interests of the inhabitants shall be paramount. That is the undertaking of a member nation who takes charge of a trusteeship territory. I think we all remember that the unfortunate inhabitants of this area have already placed their protests before the United Nations. I think it is regrettable that in this instance Canada has not taken steps to bring this matter forcibly to the attention of the United States, Great Britain and the U.S.S.R.
I know, of course, the argument is that perhaps the Russians will not agree to it. Good and well; nothing could be a greater diplomatic victory to the west than the refusal on the part of the Soviet union to agree to the cancellation of these tests. We are also told that they might agree but they would continue the tests anyway. Quite possibly; but in the present stage of development of monitoring devices that would be impossible without becoming common knowledge throughout the world, and the Russians would again suffer a diplomatic defeat. I think this is another case where apparently we are suffering from the adolescent attitude of not wanting to be nasty to our friends, not wanting to irritate them or to cause them em-barassment.
In the few minutes left at my disposal I want to deal with another aspect of our foreign policy, and that is the link that inevitably exists between our foreign policy and our defence policy. It is almost impossible to separate the two, as we have noted in the course of the debate so far. I have referred to the unconditional manner in which we are committed to the United States. In nothing is this more definite than in the question of the defence of North America, but I think we must take a serious look at our capacity to contribute to that defence today.
I do not often find myself in agreement with Mr. John Foster Dulles, but on the occasion he told us that there is no defence to thermonuclear attack except the fear of

massive retaliation I found myself in complete agreement. I presume that Mr. Dulles was voicing the opinion of his military advisers when he made that statement. Where does that leave us in Canada? Just how far can we go in making a contribution to massive retaliatory action against a thermonuclear attack.
Here again I think we perhaps need to grow up. We have to realize that we must make a sober estimate of our capacity in that regard. Remember that we are in an extremely different position today than we were in the first world war or even during the second world war, when it was possible in the then state of military development for a small power to make a useful contribution to a joint effort. A few more divisions, even though they might be small in comparison with the total effort, was that much more additional power. A few more air squadrons, even though they might not constitute more than a fraction of the total air power engaged, would increase the striking power of the air force.
Today we face an entirely different proposition. We face the sort of thing that is going on in the United States today. If we are having delusions of grandeur about being able to play in this game I would refer the house to recent articles which have appeared in United States periodicals about the crash program in connection with guided missiles. The United States are reported as spending $5 billion on this one aspect of defence, and I suggest that is too big a poker game for Canada to be able to buy chips.
We can contribute geography, and we can do something else. We can divert our enormous resources from their present dubious defence uses to the production of capital goods for those areas in the world which are at the present time uncommitted. We are not going to accomplish that by an increase of $9 million, $10 million or $29 million in our contribution to the Colombo plan. We are in a race for time. I would suggest that Canada's most significant role in foreign affairs today would be to gear her economy in large measure to the provision of that aid which may very well decide the battle in the uncommitted areas of the world.


Ernest George Hansell: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to note that there is about half a minute left in which to deliver a speech which I had prepared. I am afraid that the speech will have to be put in cold storage.
I should like to use this remaining half minute to explain why we are going to vote the way we will vote. If I could have given

my speech as planned I would have indicated that this group has no confidence in the present government's over-all policy in respect to external affairs, and if an amendment had been presented as a want of confidence amendment indicating that the government were somewhat insipid and wishful in dealing with communism on the international level, then certainly we would have voted for such an amendment.
However, the amendments deal with only one part of government policy, and must be analysed in that particular light. The Conservative amendment calls for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five minutes to six o'clock p.m., pursuant to the order passed by the house I must interrupt the proceedings and put the questions.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost. The question now is on the amendment to the main motion.

External Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the main motion lost. Is it agreed that the main motion be now withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Harris:: May I just say that the business on Friday will be the business of last Friday.


[Stage Direction]
It being twenty-three minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.