1956-08-01

[Stage Direction]
Second report of joint committee on the federal district commission.-Mr. Dumas.


Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia) moved:: That the order for second reading of Bill No. 2, an act to amend the Interest Act, which was superseded on February 2, 1956, be restored to the order paper under the heading "Public Bills and Orders" for further consideration at the next sitting of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: I	declare the motion lost.


Mr. Fulton:: Dictation.	
QUESTIONS	PASSED AS ORDERS
FOR RETURNS	
PUBLIC WORKS	1	WHARF AND HARBOUR
CONSTRUCTION, GASPE COUNTY


 -Mr. Dufresne: 1.	Was any work done by the Department of Public Works since the beginning of 1956 on the wharves and harbours at Chandler, Newport, L'Anse-au-Griffon and Cap-des-Rosiers, in the county of Gaspe?
2.	If so, what was the nature of such work?
3.	What amounts were spent in each locality for materials, labour and otherwise?

Inquiries of the Ministry
4.	What are the names of those employed and their respective salaries and wages, in each locality?
5.	Who supplied the materials used in the said work, and in what amounts, giving a detailed list?



HEART DISEASE AND CANCER STATISTICS

Mr. Leduc (Verdun): 1.	According to the statistics of the last five years, how many persons in Canada, and by provinces, have died each year (a) from heart disease; (b) from cancer?
2.	Are grants provided annually for research on causes of cancer and other matters related thereto, and in connection with heart diseases?
3.	If so, (a) what amounts were appropriated for such purposes; (b) in what manner have such amounts been distributed; (c) what institutions are entitled thereto?



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF OLD QUOTA

[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 Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that many wheat farmers in the prairie provinces have not been able to market the amount of the quota as fixed for their respective marketing points, would the minister consider extending the period in those areas so that farmers might be able to continue marketing at least until the new crop in their areas becomes available for marketing?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia also asked the same question-


Hazen Robert Argue: Yesterday.


Clarence Decatur Howe: -at the last sitting. The matter has been given very careful consideration and it has been decided- and I may say that the decision is unanimous from all my advisers-that there be no extension of the old quotas this year. Last year the old quotas were extended and shipments under old quotas were being made until December. As a matter of fact, many of the low quota points at the end of the last crop year were points where shipments had been made on extended quotas earlier in the year. The fact remains that we have shipped from the country considerably more grain this year than last year; and whereas last year we filled the eight-bushel quota with the help of the extension, this year we have failed to reach the eight-bushel quota at many points. It will be very much fairer, we feel, to start everyone even as of this day and work out the quotas accordingly as time passes. I think that perhaps answers the question.



INQUIRY AS TO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LOW DELIVERY POINTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if the minister could say why, as a means of removing the discrimination that exists against producers at many marketing points who have not been able to deliver the eight-bushel quota, all shipping orders have been kept in force at the low delivery point and grain delivered against those orders is not credited on last year's quota instead of the new quota?


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon. friend knows, there are shipping orders out at every point in quantity which would bring that point up to the eight-bushel quota. The purpose of leaving the shipping orders outstanding is the wish to make sure those points that did not market their eight bushels last year will have the first chance to deliver grain this year. Our intention is to remove grain from those particular elevators, in an effort to make sure that those particular points do deliver their eight-bushel quotas this year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Is it the intention of the minister to see that those points which delivered less grain in the crop year just ended have an opportunity of delivering that much more grain in the current crop year in order to equalize it over the two-year period?


Clarence Decatur Howe: The intention is to make sure that these points get a better than average break this year. We cannot be mathematically precise. We have not sufficient control over the distribution of box cars to be able to say that we can balance out all delivery points evenly, but we will at least give those low quota points a preference in the early stages through leaving shipping orders outstanding until they are filled.


John George Diefenbaker: wonder if the minister would say what general plan he has in mind in order to assure a reasonable degree of equality, and to remove the discrimination that existed in certain parts? How is he going to adjust this equalization to which he has just made reference?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Well, Mr. Speaker, the job of the Minister of Trade and Commerce is to make sure that the proper grades of wheat and other grains go on the boats to meet the export demand as it arises. Incidental to that, we are endeavouring to see that the grain is drawn fairly from all parts of the prairies, so far as we can, having in mind the grades of grain we require for export. We are starting this year by giving a

very strong preference during the month of August, and as long as it takes to fill shipping orders, to points that have not delivered their eight-bushel quota.
Now, as time goes on, we will try to draw grain as fairly as we can from all parts of the prairies, but I cannot commit myself to any mathematical distribution. We will do the best we can.


John George Diefenbaker: I just want the general plan.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Yes.
ILater:1



INQUIRY AS TO POLICY REGARDING OFF-SITE STORAGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could the minister inform the house, in view of the almost certainty of storage facilities being taxed to the limit, at least during the early part of the new crop year, if the government will give consideration to continuing last year's policy with regard to off-site storage for grain stored in skating rinks, and consideration even to extending off-site storage on properly farm-stored grain?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been considered and my advisers believe that the off-site storage of grain has been carried far enough. We find that there is no turnover of that grain and we are in some doubt as to the condition of some of it, though the responsibility for the condition rests with the elevator company which has placed it in storage. We think that grain should be available for immediate shipment as required and therefore we have discontinued the policy of further licensing of off-site storage.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Last Friday I asked a question of the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As reported at page 6530 of Hansard I said this:
This seems to be a departure from previous years when flax was not under quota. Will flax be under quota during the new crop year?
The minister's answer was that last year there had been a quota but that it had been removed early in the year. In a press report of July 28 appearing in the Leader-Post, and
Inquiries of the Ministry referring to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I note the following:
His officials said later that Mr. Howe had erred on this point. An announcement by the Canadian wheat board July 19, 1955, showed there was no quota control set for flax or Durum wheat for 1955-56. Neither had there been a quota for 1954-55.
I wonder if the minister would correct his answer to me so that there may be no misconception of the policy last year.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I will be glad to do so. I was in error. I had in mind that we started with a quota on flax and Durum and that it was removed. That is not the case. We had small crops of flax and Durum last year and there was no quota on these grains from the beginning of the crop year. This year we have much larger crops of flax and Durum and it was felt that a five-bushel quota would place some limitation on the amount that would be delivered in the early stages. Of course, the quota will be raised as we are able to market the crops.


Edward George McCullough: I
wonder if I might be permitted to ask a further question? In view of the statement the minister has just made, that there will be a greatly increased crop of flax and Durum and that they are going to be under quota, I wonder if his department would give consideration to including those two crops under the Canadian wheat board.


Clarence Decatur Howe: As my hon.
friend knows, we are unable to do that without legislation. I have given reasons why the government does not believe that flax should be included in the crops marketed by the wheat board. I think my hon. friend will agree that the price of flax is very satisfactory at the present time. We see no reason for interfering with the situation.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Does the contract price of over $50,000 for T.V. cameras and equipment, installation and maintenance for one year for the Peterborough post office also cover the cost of building the new viewing or T.V. inspection room that has just been built in that post office?

Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Hugues Lapoinie (Poslmasier General):
The answer is no. That part of the work is done by the public works and paid for by that department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I ask the
Minister of Public Works what the cost of that viewing room will be?


Mr. Lapointe:: I might say that I have made inquiries and public works tells me it is $2,447.50.



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fairly recent amalgamation of the town of Sutherland and the city of Saskatoon, and in view of the desire of the people there to assure to every citizen of Saskatoon door to door mail delivery, I should like to ask the minister whether a petition has been received from those people and whether such petition has been considered? If it has been so considered, what decision has been made in regard to the matter?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, no petition has been brought to my notice. It is quite possible that one may have been received by officials of the department. I shall make inquiries and report to my hon. friend.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is the invitation to Brigadier Allard by the Prime Minister to join the cabinet considered closed, or is the matter still open?


Right Hon. L. S. Si. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Whenever there is an addition to the cabinet an announcement will be made.
I had conversations about a year ago with my good friend, Brigadier Allard, but they did not lead to any action.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Defence I should like to direct a question to 
his parliamentary assistant. In view of the tragic accident which occurred in Regina last evening, I wonder whether the parliamentary assistant will inform the house if it is the practice of the army to provide live ammunition at public military displays being held at fairs and exhibitions throughout Canada?


Mr. Paul Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: The army is making a full and complete investigation into this very unfortunate accident. Until I have seen the report I do not think I should like to comment on it.


Alfred Claude Ellis: If this is the practice, can the parliamentary assistant assure the house that instructions will go out from defence headquarters to cease the practice of providing live ammunition at the displays?



GREENWOOD, N.S.  STATEMENT ON REPORTED CONVERSION OF COAL-BURNING EQUIPMENT AT R.C.A.F. STATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yesterday the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis) asked if tenders had been called to convert coal-burning equipment at R.C.A.F. station, Greenwood, Nova Scotia.
There are 481 permanent married quarters heated by hot air. Of these, 100 are heated by coal and the balance by oil. In the interest of standardization it has been decided to convert the balance of the coal heating units to oil, and tenders have been called for this purpose.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. W. Murphy (Lambton West):: wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has a reply to my question regarding the diversion of water from lake Michigan through the Chicago drainage canal system?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, I have not a complete reply, but I expect to have one tomorrow morning.


Joseph Warner Murphy: May I ask a
supplementary question? In view of the statements attributed to United States senators or congressmen that the diversion of water from lake Michigan through the drainage system is no concern of Canada- in other words, they intimated in the press that Canada need not be consulted, of which

I think the minister is well aware-will the minister, when he is making this legal exploration of the problem, determine whether the United States was consulted when northern waters were diverted into lake Superior, and whether that same principle will apply to the diversion of waters from any lake, especially one that is wholly in Canada? Would the same principle not apply?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We shall look into that aspect of the question. As to the statement alleged to have been made by certain United States congressmen that this diversion is no concern of Canada, it is a concern of Canada and we have already made known that concern by a note last March which I think has been tabled.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the Secretary of State for External Affairs a report for the house regarding his investigation of the detention of Mr. Babic of Toronto by the United States immigration department?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, although we have not yet received any complaint on this matter, as I stated the other day in the house, in view of the press statements concerning it, we have asked our officials in New York to make an inquiry. They have done that and as a result received a report from the United States immigration authorities which does not coincide in every respect with the statements made by Mr. Babic to the press. However, even on the basis of the United States report I think there is justification for complaint to the United States government. Before we decide to take any formal action I think we ought to give Mr. Babic a chance to comment on the United States immigration report.
Apparently this naturalized Canadian citizen was stopped in New York in transit to Canada, which of course is something within the right of the United States government to do. However, we feel that on this occasion the use of that legal right was not warranted and that the national security of the United States would not have been prejudiced by the immediate departure of this shipwrecked Canadian citizen to his home in Toronto.
Inquiries of the Ministry CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


INDIAN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnetl (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In view of the fact that Canada's native Indians now have adopted a flag of their own to signify the Indians' right of eminent domain over their land, will the minister open negotiations with Mr. Andy Pauli, the Indian spokesman, for permission to adopt this flag for use by the rest of Canada, thereby solving the problem of Indian rights and of a Canadian flag at one fell swoop.
Perhaps I might say that as this flag was flown first in Comox-Alberni I am somewhat concerned about whether I will be admitted to my constituency at the end of the session.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible for the minister to open negotiations with Mr. Pauli as he is engaged continuously in negotiations with him. As to the other question asked by the hon. member, I think it is outside my competence as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries concerning commercial fishing problems on the great lakes. Has the minister received any verbal or written representations regarding loss of catches in lake Erie where oil and gas exploration is taking place and, if so, can the government do anything about it?
There is a second question I should like to ask at this time. In view of the lamprey menace and the fact that the international joint commission now has jurisdiction over the commercial fishing industry in the great lakes in an effort to stamp out this menace, will there now be divided jurisdiction between the federal government and the province? Have any representations been made to the federal government to take over the administration of laws and regulations regarding fisheries?


Hon. James Sinclair (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have received verbal complaints from other Ontario members regarding this problem of drilling for gas and oil in lake Ontario and lake Erie. I have also
6786	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry received some written complaints from fishermen on lake Erie. However, I have directed these people to make their complaints to the government of Ontario which administers fishing in the great lakes.
As far as the other question is concerned as to the administration of commercial fishing, the province of Ontario asked to administer these fisheries and unless they ask us to take back that administration we do not propose to take any action in the matter.


Joseph Warner Murphy: A supplementary question: Could the minister indicate what licence fee is charged commercial fishermen in other parts of Canada where the federal government has jurisdiction as compared with the fees charged on the great lakes?


James Sinclair: We have very few licence fees. On the west coast we have an annual fee of $1 for commercial fishermen who are gill netters, seiners or trailers. On the east coast we have only two fees, one of 25 cents a year for lobster fishermen and another of $1 a year as a weir licence. I do not know the scale of fees charged by the Ontario government on the great lakes.



REPORTED ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTIONS FOR GENERAL ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Roch Pinard (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, on July 27 the hon. member for Vancouver East asked whether instructions had gone out from the chief electoral officer to the returning officers in federal constituencies to prepare for a federal election. I have discussed this matter with him and, as I indicated, instructions were sent to all returning officers in Canada on June 18 to proceed with the revision of the boundaries of polling divisions in their respective electoral districts. As I indicated then, this revision and the selection of enumerators, which was I think the subject of the letter my hon. friend received, constitute routine preparations for a federal election.
On the same day the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe asked the following question:
In how many electoral districts are there returning officers now established either by recent appointment or permanently from the last election?
I have been informed by the chief electoral officer that there are 243 electoral districts with returning officers in office now and 20 vacancies which it is intended to fill as early as possible.
[Mr. Sinclair.)


Gordon Knapman Fraser: May I
ask a further question. Have the returning officers been instructed to send out notices to members to get their enumerators in within 30 days? I understand that one hon. member has received such notice.


Roch Pinard: I do not know the exact time in which enumerators must be designated. I was informed by the chief electoral officer that that is part of the instructions which were sent to the returning officers.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That they have to be in within 30 days?


Roch Pinard: I do not know about the. time; I shall have to check.



EFFECT OF UNITED STATES SUBSIDY ON EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Joseph Warner Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the announced United States policy of subsidizing exports of cotton products to Canada and the announced intention of the government to apply dumping duties on the United States retail price, what action is being taken by the department to explore the possibility of there being a lower retail price because of the subsidy which would permit a lower production cost?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: I am sorry I did not catch all of the question and I shall have to take it as notice.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. William Bryce (Selkirk):: Is the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare going to announce the answer to my question of yesterday?


Mr. F. G. Robertson (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I was not in the house yesterday and I am afraid I am not in a position to answer the question, but I shall try to find an answer for the hon. member.


William Scottie Bryce: The Minister of Finance promised he would get me an answer.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. "Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS A-Department and missions abroad-
92. Departmental administration, $4,379,430.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is an occasion of which I shall take advantage to make a statement, which I hope will not be too long, on some aspects of our foreign policy.
At the beginning I should point out to the house that the committee on external affairs had a number of useful meetings, during which not only was careful consideration given to every detail of our estimates but there was also an exchange of views, in which I participated at four or five meetings, on policy matters generally. Therefore I have had an opportunity recently to discuss some of our policies.
Also in the house, in January last I made a fairly comprehensive statement on some of the major aspects of our policy. At that time I dealt more particularly with an analysis, in so far as we were able to make it, of the recent changes in Soviet leadership. I discussed the situation in the Middle East and also, at that time in January, the situation in the Far East.
So far as the latter subject is concerned, there has been no substantial change in the situation in the Far East since I spoke in January; nor has there been any change in Canadian policy with respect to it. That situation, particularly in and about the Formosan straits, remains potentially dangerous as long as two Chinese armies face each other only four or five miles apart, but it has not in recent weeks or even in recent months deteriorated.
So far as the situation in the Middle East is concerned, the long and bitter dispute between the state of Israel and its Arab neighbours continues. That situation, while still tense, has not-and this is as far, I think, as anyone would dare go,-has not grown worse since I talked about it last. Incidents, which continue on the frontiers and which are likely to continue in the present atmosphere, have not, at least, exploded into war. The United Nations secretary-general in two visits to the area has made a useful and constructive effort to lessen tension in that area, and by his intervention he has, I think, succeeded in strengthening the truce. I know that on the cease fire and the truce which he has helped to strengthen he hopes to build an arrangement vdiich will be more permanent.
Supply-External Affairs
I think we can also pay tribute at this time to the activities of the United Nations truce commission in Palestine, in which several Canadian officers are now serving. That commission is playing a courageous and selfless part in difficult and indeed-as we know from the tragic incident of last week- often in dangerous circumstances. It is operating under the objective, patient and very efficient leadership of a Canadian, General Burns, whose work, I think, deserves the highest commendation on the part of all those who are genuinely interested in establishing security and a just peace in that part of the world. Certainly there is not peace there yet, for there has been no political settlement made between the contending parties. That must come if there is to be peace, because in the long run such a political settlement under the United Nations, rather than arms, will be the foundation of security for Israel and the Arab states.
In recent days a new situation-I was going to say "a new crisis"-has developed there in connection with the Suez canal. A sudden arbitrary move on the part of the Egyptian government has aroused fears that the right to use this international waterway in peace and war without discrimination may be prejudiced, a right which, as hon. members know, is guaranteed by an international treaty. Far more than the nationalization, or, if you like, the expropriation, of the Suez Canal Company is at stake in this matter; it is the future use for all nations without arbitrary or unnecessary interference of an essential international artery of trade and of communications, a waterway which was constructed by international agreement and with international co-operation and is now maintained and operated internationally.
As hon. members know, steps are being taken at the moment in London, by three powers very directly and importantly affected by the Egyptian decision, to bring about a satisfactory solution to this problem, the problem created by this action of the Egyptian government, by establishing some form of permanent international control for this international waterway, by which the legitimate rights of all countries can be protected. Until the results of this London meeting are available-and the meeting has not concluded yet-I think I should say nothing more about this matter, except possibly to express the support of our government for the principle of such international control, with the countries having the greatest interest in the operation of the canal sharing in that control, preferably, if this turns out to be practicable, under the aegis of the United Nations.

Supply-External Affairs
The third subject I dealt with last January is one which will occupy our attention and at times our anxieties, namely, the relations between the Soviet union and the coalition of free states in which Canada is playing a part. In so far as the possibility of an allout war is concerned, I think it can be said, as it has been said on more than one occasion, that we are now reaching, if we have not already reached, a deadlock of mutual deterrence through the certainty of mutual destruction. That is in a sense, I suppose, effective but it does mean reliance by both sides on the fear brought about by thermonuclear power used for destructive purposes. Therefore national security and international peace are becoming merely the probability and the hope that we will get through any year without being blown to bits.
At the very same time that we rely on this deterrence, and we have to rely on it, there is a frantic search going on on both sides for the intercontinental ballistic missile which will remove or certainly will minimize this mutual deterrence by the discovery of an annihilating weapon against which, if used aggressively, there may be no defence or, indeed, no warning. Therefore I do not think any of us can get very much permanent comfort out of a security resting on a balance of terror. Indeed, in that situation there are certain advantages possessed by the Soviet union. With its despotic government, without the restraints of public opinion, it can, if it so desires, use this situation for political blackmail in peacetime and for what have been called brush fire wars which would throw on our side the responsibility of converting these limited wars into thermonuclear ones.
That possible situation certainly has a bearing both on our defence and on our diplomatic policies and it leads me to the conclusion that atomic defence and atomic deterrence are not enough. It also leads me to stress the importance of diplomatic defences, of political unity on our side, of economic strength, of moral purpose. These things are becoming more and more important as developments occur, but while we seek them on our side the drive to extend Soviet influence by a wide variety of means still continues.
The emphasis now in tactics and perhaps in policy has been shifted, I think, since the new leadership came into power in Moscow from the military to the economic and the political. How much this shift represents a change of heart and how much is a revision of thinking forced upon Moscow by the H-bomb and the strength and unity of NATO,
I am not prepared to say. I think that the latter factor, our strength, may have been


if not the dominating at least a very important consideration in any changes that have taken place.
But whatever the reason, the Soviet union may now have decided to abandon for the time being at least the open and direct use of armed force for the extension of its influence lest this should lead to the outbreak of global and thermonuclear war. Yet while such a thermonuclear war is recognized by the Soviet union, as it is by us, as a calamity of unthinkable proportions, nevertheless until such time as a condition of greater mutual trust has been established between the two worlds any weakening in the defensive capabilities of the free democracies might provide a serious temptation to the Soviet union to revert to the use of armed force for the pursuit of policy. They certainly have the capacity for this. Their tactics may have changed but their military strength has been maintained. Indeed, their industrial strength has been greatly increased and that industrial and economic strength is now becoming an important agent of their foreign policy. The armed strength of the Soviet union, which is now in process of being revamped and modernized, is a central fact which I suggest we cannot and must not ignore, especially when we consider our own defence plans and defence policies.
Mr. Khrushchev, speaking at the recent 20th party congress in Moscow, said:
We must resolve to take all measures necessary to strengthen further the defence potential of our socialist state.
It is well to remember this when we read of Soviet proposals to demobilize soldiers and when we receive appeals to take it easy and to throw away our arms because the danger has now disappeared. This strengthening, moreover, applies not merely to the Soviet state itself but to what the Soviet leaders call-and they never seem to weary of referring to it-the international camp of socialism, something which, of course, is quite peaceful and respectable although our own coalitions are always referred to by them as aggressive military blocs.
Therefore I think that all members will agree with me that we in the western world must remain on guard. But while all this is true, and it certainly is true, I think it is also true that since the death of Stalin the Soviet government and the Soviet regime have begun to eliminate some of the more objectionable features of both their foreign and domestic policies. There have been relaxations at home, and as a result I believe that certain internal pressures may be developing in Russia which could have a restraining influence on the activities of the Soviet leaders. These Russian leaders may have started

a train of events which, under normal conditions, should be welcome to the bulk of their population with whom the dynamism of revolution has probably run down. That process may become increasingly difficult to reverse at home if it is permitted to gain momentum there, but it is certainly not likely to lead, as we sometimes hopefully think, to parliamentary democracy or to any kind of democracy as we understand it because that is impossible in a communist state and Russia under its new leaders remains determinedly communist.
Also it is too soon to say, I think, that irresistible forces of freedom have been set in motion and that this means a great triumph for the western world. Indeed, these relaxations and their results, both at home and among their satellite communities, may frighten the new rulers who may try to reverse the trend, and out of this effort a new Stalin, Khrushchev or somebody else may arise as the old Stalin arose out of the ruins of the new economic policy in the twenties. This accession of one man to power is consistent both with the Slav tradition of autocratic rule and the communist doctrine of what they call democratic centralism.
So we would be wise, I think, to welcome and exploit any changes that seem for the better in both domestic and foreign policies of the Soviet union without exaggerating their extent or being bedazzled or deceived by them. At the same time, we must not be too tighly bound by the analysis which we made of Soviet policy under the Stalin regime, nor must we leave the initiative in the present period always to the new Soviet leaders, and they are very adept, indeed, in taking advantage of the initiative.
But one thing we can be sure of, that any changes of this character, and there certainly have been some, are not the result of weakness or lack of confidence of the new rulers in the future of the Soviet system. They are certainly as fanatical on that score as ever Stalin or his contemporaries were. Let us not be deceived by the illusion-I think we are in the process of tearing it away-that the Soviets are a backward people, 150 million feudal, downtrodden peasants in an oxcart civilization because, as we know, nothing could be further from the truth. We are beginning to appreciate that fact as more of us visit the Soviet union. It is true that in that country individuals have not the luxuries which we consider to be necessities nor often even the necessities which we take as a matter of course. But the regime there has converted the poverty of the people into the power of the state. On individual deprivation they have built great national strength
Supply-External Affairs and great national confidence and pride. Two United States commentators are not always too encouraging in their prognosis of what is going to happen. The Alsop brothers have warned us that we had better drop the favourite western parlour game of searching for imaginary Soviet weakness. In an article which one of them wrote a few weeks ago he had this to say:
. . . it is one of history's little jokes that this demonstration of the Soviet society's superior efficiency', on its terms,-
That is the terms of centralized, autocratic, communist power and control.
-should come at a moment when the western societies are also demonstrating their superior efficiency on their terms, in the form of Britain's all-embracing welfare society and America's gorged plenty. But history does not suggest, alas, that great power contests can be won by free false teeth or even by platoons of air-conditioned Cadillacs.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, this strength and power of the Soviet under its new leaders has not been affected, as I see it, by the de-Stalinization of the regime. In fact, while Stalin has been repudiated, the essentials of Stalinism remain. We know what they are: one party-despotic government; control of every expression of free thought and free action by that government; induced fear and hostility to every form of non-communist rule, especially through education; subordination of the individual to the ruling communist group; unqualified belief in the ultimate overthrow of free democracy by communism; and refusal of any form of political freedom to subject or satellite peoples who are incorporated into the Russian political system for power political purposes, except on the basis of complete acceptance of the rule of the communist junta in Moscow itself.
It may be of developing significance-I hope it is-that there have been signs of change in this latter situation in the satellite border states. But there is no sign of change in respect of the absorption of subject peoples like the Ukranians and the Balts inside the communist centralized empire. While they and other subject peoples remain under the heel of Moscow, we certainly have the right to reject any protestations by the leaders in Moscow of their belief in self-government or the rights of peoples. Indeed, this Russian system is a new colonialism which is far more terrible, far more reactionary and far more widespread than was any form of colonial rule in history. Moreover, it is practised by men who have managed to get too many other men to accept them as champions of national freedom against the old colonialism which is now fast disappearing. Their claims

Supply-External Affairs to such a role in twentieth century development of national freedom represent one of the greatest perversions in history.
Then finally, Stanlinism meant the use of communist parties in non-communist states as agents of Moscow policies. These parties I think have been shaken by the overthrow of their great god Stalin; but they are recovering from this shock and they are now beginning to rally with traditional submission- as so often in the past-to the new dictates from Moscow and to become its agents as before. Their attitude to this change that has taken place will be a conclusive test whether they have any claims to national allegiance or national status at all or whether they are merely, as they were formerly, the tools of Moscow for any purpose that Moscow may decide to follow.
Hence a question which has exercised us in the past is, I think, exercising us even more at the present time. The question to which I refer is this. Have the Moscow communist leaders abandoned the cult not only of personality, as they claim, but the cult of international revolution, of the violent overthrow of our system? They, of course, insist that there is no such cult, no such design, or no such danger. Khrushchev, She-pilov and the others, it is true, have admitted -indeed they have insisted-that the capitalist and the socialist-communist systems cannot be reconciled, that one or the other must go; and they are confident that it will not be the communist system that will go. But, they add, this can be done peacefully. As Mr. Khrushchev put it in the twentieth party congress in Moscow, and his words were repeated by other Soviet leaders on that occasion:
There is nothing more absurd than the fiction that people are forced to take the path of communism under pressure from without. We are confident that the ideas of communism will triumph and no "iron curtains" or barriers erected by the bourgeois reactionaries can halt their spread to more and more millions.
That is the fairy tale, namely that these things develop from within, peacefully and without force. The fact is, as we all know, that no single country in history has become communist by the declared will of its people. In every case force was used and force was decisive. Mr. Khrushchev really let the cat out of the bag last February when he wrote- and some of his colleagues repeated it at the last party congress-as follows:
Of course, in those countries where capitalism is still strong, where it has in its hands an enormous military-police apparatus, there the serious opposition of the reactionary forces is inevitable. There the transition to socialism will take place in conditions of sharp class, revolutionary struggle.

What this means, in plain English, is that communism will use force when it considers it necessary to do so, and if it can, in order to destroy parliamentary democracy and establish the dictatorship of the communist party. In effect, the new position in Moscow is exactly the same as it was when Stalin, some years ago, said that the communist parties would be quite happy to achieve power by parliamentary means, by peaceful means, but that they would use force if they had to and in any event they would achieve power peacefully for the same purposes as if they had achieved it by force.
A question arising out of this which concerns us in this country and in other countries, is this. Does this mean that Moscow is still willing and anxious to assist any and every foreign communist party in its revolutionary plans, in its determination to overthrow free parliamentary government? That, Mr. Chairman, seems to me to be a vital question, the test of Soviet sincerity. It is for them to demonstrate that they are not concerned now with international revolution. I do not expect-nor can any of us-that these people in Moscow and elsewhere should abandon their revolutionary slogans. That probably would be too much to hope for. But we can expect, and indeed we can insist as a test of good faith, that they show that in fact they are keeping out of our domestic affairs. We have no assurance on this score in this country or in other countries. Nor have we any reason to believe, changing to another aspect of Soviet policy, that they have abandoned or weakened in any respect what has been for some years now the primary objective of Soviet policy, the weakening and destruction of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. NATO is still a major target for Soviet attack; that is still the greatest tribute to its value and strength. It certainly should counsel us to preserve that strength.
So far as the military side of this question is concerned it may well be, as has been indicated, that new developments both political and strategic may make a reassessment of NATO's plans and NATO's defence policies desirable. It may even make desirable some reassessment of plans and strategy to meet new circumstances. But that, I suggest, must not imply any weakening of NATO's deterrent and defensive forces.
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, indeed I think it is essential, that this reassessment and any changes which may result from it should be made inside the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and should be the result of collective discussion and collective agreement. Unilateral decisions, without such discussion or agreement,

would weaken and indeed might even destroy NATO. We must then work together as members of this coalition if unity and strength are to be preserved. That is the very essence of the NATO concept, and without it NATO is not likely to last very long. Yet, this kind of close and continuous co-operation may be more difficult now in NATO than it has been, now that the fear of direct all out military aggression against western Europe seems to have lessened. That is one of the dangers confronting us. It is also, Mr. Chairman, the reason why the non-military aspects of co-operation are becoming more and more important. Indeed that form of co-operation, and we are beginning I think to recognize this more and more, is an important aspect of collective defence in the new situation.
I hope that the committee of three which has been set up by NATO will be able to make some recommendations in this field which will strengthen this side of NATO. This committee hopes to be able to finish its work and make its report some time in October.
But while, Mr. Chairman-this will be the last matter that I will be discussing in my general statement-NATO is important and is essential to our security and the development of the Atlantic community, the United Nations, with all its disappointments and its weaknesses as well as with all its accomplishments and its strengths, remains the basis of our general international policy. One of the most important things to be discussed through the United Nations now is, of course, disarmament. As members of the committee know, the subcommittee of the United Nations committee on disarmament, of which Canada has for some years now been a member, met in London last spring and the western side did produce proposals at that meeting which provided for the limitation and reduction of armaments by stages under control in each stage. It is also true that at that time it was proposed on our side that at the beginning of the second stage there should be a limitation on nuclear tests, a matter which is of very great and understandable interest to all of us, a limitation of nuclear tests supervised by a special branch of the international control organ.
At the meeting comprehensive agreement was not possible, and therefore an effort was made to bring about a more limited agreement as the first stage to making a more comprehensive agreement. The more limited agreement would have dealt primarily with conventional forces, but there was also a provision dealing with nuclear tests. But agreement on that was also not possible.
Supply-External Affairs Therefore, the subcommittee reported in July to the full committee in New York and its report, one must admit, was one of progress only in a strictly academic and possibly parliamentary sense. In July the full committee met and at this meeting, at which Canada was represented by my colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the four western members of the subcommittee introduced a resolution reaffirming the six basic principles which they accepted for a disarmament convention. I think it is important, in view of the interest in this matter, that these six basic principles be put on the record. I *believe they have been found acceptable by a great many other countries.
They are:
1.	A disarmament program should proceed by stages. Progress from one stage to another must depend upon the satisfactory execution of the preceding stage and upon the development of confidence through the settlement of major political problems.
2.	The program should begin, under effective international control, with significant reductions in armed forces to such levels as are feasible. There should be corresponding reductions in conventional armaments and in military expenditures. Further reductions would be carried out as world conditions improved.
3.	The program should provide that, at an appropriate stage and under proper safeguards, the buildup of stockpiles of nuclear weapons would be stopped and all future production of nuclear material would be devoted to peaceful uses. There would also be a limitation, before that took place, of nuclear tests.
4.	The program should provide for a strong control organization with inspection rights, including aerial reconnaissance, operating from the outset and developing in parallel with the disarmament measure.
5.	Preliminary demonstrations of inspection methods on a limited scale would help to develop an effective control system and could bring nearer a general agreement on a disarmament program.
6.	Finally, there should be provision made for the suspension of the program, in whole or iri part, if a major state failed to carry out its obligation or if a threat of peace under chapter VII of the United Nations charter should occur.
Well that, Mr. Chairman, is the position taken by the west at the recent meeting. I emphasize that in that position, which we have supported, even a partial agreement must contain some nuclear components. The representative of the United Kingdom at this

Supply-External Affairs committee in New York went even farther and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom repeated in essence the other day in the House of Commons what Mr. Nutting said on this point in New York. Mr. Nutting said:
If limitation of nuclear test explosions is not possible under a disarmament agreement, we are prepared to try other methods, without delay, and without waiting for agreement on a comprehensive disarmament program.
This means that while the abolition of tests would be part of a broader agreement, the limitation of tests could begin independent of the achievement of any sifbh broader agreement. I can say, Mr. Chairman, that we warmly support that position taken by the United Kingdom. We feel that it is of the most vital importance to press ahead both with arms limitations and with political settlements wherever there is any hope of reaching such a settlement with the other side. To adopt any other policy would be to accept the proposition that security rests, and must continue to rest, merely on the fear of common annihilation. That policy- some people call it realism, but I think it is realism based on despair-is not a policy which I am sure will commend itself to the members of this committee, or indeed to the people of Canada. A substitute for that policy, which may be essential at the present time for the avoidance of war, something which is even more permanent and in the long run more satisfactory, would be a policy of mutual agreement, mutual trust and mutual co-operation. I hope that in the effort to reach that objective the Canadian government will play a good part, and I am quite sure that if it succeeds in playing such a part it will have the support not only of all members of this house but of the people of Canada.


Mr. Green:: May I ask the minister whether he will comment on the present situation in Burma which appears to be very serious?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think maybe I should have made clear at the beginning that I shall be glad, of course, during the course of the debate, or toward the end of it, to deal with special questions which may be raised by hon. members; but since one has already been raised maybe I can say something about it at the moment because I realize there have been some pretty alarming headlines in the newspapers. The information which we have been able to get-and it is not easy to get information because it is a remote border of Burma-is, though one cannot be dogmatic about it, that the danger and the extent of this action by the Chinese communists have been somewhat exaggerated.


The border in question is not well marked. It has been disputed for many years, before even the advent of the communist government in Peking, and there have been border forays of this kind before. It is to be hoped that this is no more serious than the previous ones, and there is not very much indication that we have had that it is. We have also learned, and the press has reported it, that the Burmese government is in touch with the Chinese communist government on this matter. It will be recalled that the Burmese government has a treaty with the Chinese government which provides for the mutual respect of each other's territorial integrity. This will be an opportunity for the Chinese communist government to show whether it respects not only boundaries, but that treaty, and for the Burmese government to confirm, or otherwise, the confidence which they have placed in an agreement of that kind between an Asian country and the communist government in China.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall follow the lead of the minister and devote less time than usual to a discussion of international questions by reason of the fact that a committee has been sitting at length in this regard and has dealt with many matters which otherwise would have received attention at this time. My remarks will be general. My colleagues will fill in the various matters respecting which they individually require information.
Before I proceed I think I should say something regarding the chairman of the committee on external affairs. I want to say this with great sincerity. The hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, as chairman of the committee, has acted throughout with dignity, courtesy, and fairness to all members of the committee. I also want to say a word of congratulations to my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on his elevation to a position of one of the free world's three wise men, and I only wish that he had enlarged somewhat on the work of the group with whom he is associated in the achievement of the purposes which he set out in the last few minutes of his address. As a matter of fact, what he said could have been said several months ago. For some reason he did not deal at length with two situations which today face the free world. One of those is the dangerous and truculent attitude on the part of General Nasser, and the other is the continuance of communist infiltration which in the last few days has seen a repetition in Burma of the communist actions in other parts of the world on other occasions. He mentioned the effects of the fear of hydrogen war. That fear of hydrogen war and its effect on the psychological attitude of

nations to war were dealt with at considerable length by Sir Anthony Eden, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, in his address on foreign affairs one week ago today. The minister has stated that the mutual deterrent of war has resulted from the certainty of mutual destruction. To put it another way, the fear of thermonuclear war has made peace popular even with the aggressors of the U.S.S.R. The minister did add a qualification, I think, when he stated that protection against the effects of hydrogen war might, in the not too distant future, dilute the deterrent effect of fear today. I had thought, however, that the minister should have dealt at somewhat greater length with the situation prevailing today in the Middle East.
First, with regard to Israel, I had hoped that by now the government would have been in a position to advise the house and the country that the request of Israel for export permits for sabre aircraft would have been granted. I feel that, having regard to recent events, there can be no justification for further delay in this regard. For a long period of time the dictator of Egypt was believed to have non-agressive designs. His speeches of the last few days, and in particular the one which he delivered when announcing the stand his government intended to take to nationalize the Suez canal, had all the exuberance, all the flamboyance and all the threats that were at one time common to Mussolini. In his recent address Nasser had led the free world to believe that he has taken to himself the garb of a dictator, as did Hitler and Mussolini, and he has indicated that he dreams of the day when his nation will control northern Africa from the Atlantic to Iraq and Iran.
Certainly the U.S.S.R. has been giving every assistance to Nasser to feed his appetite for aggression. Today Egypt has 150 MIGs and 45 bombers. Israel does not ask for assistance in aggressive warfare in the form of bombers and the like; what she is asking for is a few fighters to enable her to raise her defences should Nasser change from mere truculence in words to actual aggression.
Then with regard to the Suez canal, the arbitrary action on his part, challenging as it does international law, freedom under law among nations, breaking as it does the pledged word, may I say that I feel that Canada as the leading member of the British commonwealth at this time should give public encouragement to the stand taken by Great Britain, France and the United States. We should indicate that the reasonable attitude of mind and the calm consideration
Supply-External Affairs which these nations are giving warrants the moral support of Canada in these dark hours.
I would have thought that the minister would have enlarged somewhat upon our relationships within the British commonwealth and would have given more information than we have received as yet from the Prime Minister with regard to the decisions or at least an indication of the decisions reached at that conference, representative as it was of a large proportion of the world's population and a major assurance for the preservation of world peace.
As far as the Suez canal is concerned, if the canal is closed the danger to Britain's lifeline and to freedom's defence is fearful to contemplate. The closing of the Suez canal would bottle up freedom's defence in the Mediterranean. It would make almost impossible the maintenance of British trade which is being challenged today as the result of the economic offensive of the U.S.S.R. At the moment Nasser claims he has no such intention in mind, but it is only a few months ago that he with sweet words and in symphony with the U.S.S.R. spoke so warmly of his intentions with regard to Britain and the other free nations. His word has been proved to be false and valueless.
The minister was kind enough to let me have some figures indicating the importance of the Suez canal. Apparently the figures for 1953 are the last that are available but they indicate the following tonnages passing through the canal:
Shipping Tonnage
United Kingdom	 31,262,257
Norway	 13,926,235
United States	 4,123,498
France	 8,425,534
Italy	 4,991,152
The Netherlands	 4,230,149
Sweden	 3,169,113
Those figures indicate the need of maintaining and preserving the Suez canal for our survival. The oil from the east, which represents some 75 per cent of British imports, comes through the Suez. United States imports of oil and byproducts are also very large. The economic effects that would follow are indicated by the fact that if the United States had to change the direction of its ships around the cape it would add $46,000 to the cost of every tanker. That indicates the importance of the Suez, not only as a lifeline of freedom's defence but because of what it means to British trade now fighting a life and death struggle for survival against the U.S.S.R. in its new state-directed economic offensive. I ask even now that this government give to the world approval and support of what is being done
6794	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs at the meeting which is today convened in London to the end that those three nations will realize that we in the free world are united.
Just a few minutes ago the minister laid some emphasis upon the need for unity. In my opinion, never before has it been more necessary and never before would it have given that encouragement and support which the statesmen meeting there and joined to us in bonds of freedom have the right to expect.
I am going to speak for a few minutes on the viewpoints expressed by the minister as to the changed attitude on the part of the U.S.S.R., in particular the change which has taken place since the meeting of the 20th congress in February last.
Everyone in the free world is still questioning the meaning of the destruction of Stalin's halo. He has been exhumed and his halo has been knocked from his head by axe and hatchet men who climbed to power by remaining his subservient dupes. Even as late as a year ago I was in East Germany and saw there something of the worship of Stalin. In every town and village, in monument and in picture, he was represented as a leader beyond reproach, one who in the words of Khrushchev was above all others the most trusted leader the world had ever seen.
Why the revelation indicating that he is a combination of mass murderer, torturer, leader of deportations and destroyer of the courts? Why should he now be pictured as a person who by mass starvation destroyed opposition? Why should he be revealed as a person to whom freedom under law consisted in the courts carrying out whatever orders he might direct or determine? I think the words quoted by Khrushchev indicate that the courts had ceased to be protectors even in the slightest degree, the words of Stalin when he communicated with the head of the security branch when the Moscow doctors were charged with having plotted against Stalin. Stalin said, "I want confessions, and if you do not obtain confessions from the doctors I will shorten you by a head." He said, according to Khrushchev's words, "It is a very simple way to get confessions. Beat, beat, and once again beat to get confessions; that is your responsibility."
Khrushchev also indicated the danger of being in public life when he stated that, of the 139 members of the communist party central committee of the seventeenth congress, 98 had been arrested and shot while they were still members of the organization.
Why the revelation? I presume that we in our generation will never find out. Why did those who followed Stalin in obsequious 

support find it necessary last February in an ideological convulsion to turn their backs on Stalin while at the same time failing in even the slightest degree to offer to return the loot and the spoils of his wrong-doing or even to show remorse for the mass deportation and enslavement of peoples? These are questions that we ask today.
Has the U.S.S.R. changed? The minister, I think, gave the answer, that while there appears to be a mental change there is nothing to indicate that there has been brought about a change of heart or, indeed, of destination. World tension has subsided. That is one thing that has happened. Sir Anthony Eden said a week ago today that for the moment an economic invasion seems to have been substituted for war, and he said he preferred an economic invasion to cold war. But everywhere in the world, while the leadership of the U.S.S.R. gives indication of a change, they continue their work to undermine those organizations of the free world that assure freedom.
The minister mentioned the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I should like him to deal, when he replies, with the terrible effect on North American defence which will result should Iceland decide, not to disavow NATO, but to deny NATO the bases upon which North American defence can be pivoted. What are the hopes of assuring that the airfields at Keflavik will remain under NATO, regardless of whether the United States, by force of circumstances and by orders of the new Icelandic government with communist assistance, has to withdraw? What will be the effect on the north anchor of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization if Iceland persists in the stand that it is taking? The action taken by the government of Iceland cannot but arouse fears that the U.S.S.R., by its modified policy of wanton smiles, is achieving a melting of the mortar binding NATO together.
The minister mentioned that he believed that more and more political unity is important in the shift that has taken place on the part of the U.S.S.R. from military to economic aims. I wish he would amplify that. What has been achieved as a result of the meetings so far on the part of NATO, in connection with the economic features of the U.S.S.R. world offensive? Has there been any move to assure that among the NATO nations there is a realization of the need of the preservation of our economic strength? Has there been any degree of acceptance on the part of the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization of the need of removing tariffs that today prevent that exchange so necessary of goods between those nations, so that in solidarity and unity NATO may be

preserved, when the fear and the threat of potential war are removed? What is being done to meet the offensive on the part of the U.S.S.R. whereby all over the world the U.S.S.R. has salesmen who combine the pur-case and sale of goods and merchandise with political infiltration? These are questions that are of immediate moment, for in the last nine months the U.S.S.R. has entered into 39 trade agreements in all parts of the world wherein the profit of the balance sheet has been secondary to the profit of submerged souls in the nations that are at the moment beneficiaries of economic assistance.
In his remarks I think the minister gave a strong word of warning to those who believe that all is changed and fear is generally removed. He mentioned the captive peoples, a matter of tremendous interest to many Canadians of various racial origins. Not one word has been uttered by Khrushchev or Bulganin that in any way proclaims liberty to captive peoples or to those imprisoned or in slave camps. The dinner in London showed the attitude of the U.S.S.R. When Khrushchev was asked to free 170 social democrats whose only offence was that they did not agree with the U.S.S.R. and its system Khrushchev replied with great heat, "Never, never, never."
Is there anything to indicate at all so far as the U.S.S.R. is concerned that free elections are going to be given to the Balts, to the Ukrainians, to the Poles, to the other captive peoples? Khrushchev said in February at the meeting of the Congress that these peoples loved the freedom of the U.S.S.R. No, there is no suggestion of remorse on the part of Khrushchev or Bulganin for their terrible wrongs and there is no hope expressed of the possibility of freedom being given to these peoples or the opportunity of free elections.
I was very much struck by one expression that the minister used. He said that nowhere in the world had any nation voted itself by the ballot into communism. Until the U.S.S.R. expresses its remorse and accompanies this expression of remorse by actual action which will enable those people behind the iron curtain to look forward to the day when freedom may be theirs, we have a right to look with great suspicion upon the spurious offers of warmhearted international co-operation. What should we do? There are many who say that in view of the change from emphasis on warlike production to economic competition there should be considerable reductions in military strength. That view is held throughout the free nations. Sometimes one is apt to forget, however, in holding that view that the U.S.S.R., while always protesting its belief in disarmament, has
Supply-External Affairs under arms today four and a half million men in its army, a million and a half in its air force and a million in the navy and that during the last year it has increased the number of its submarines from 420 to 450.
However, even in the face of that the Prime Minister of Britain indicated last Monday that there had been such a change of attitude that there must come reconsideration of the question of the numbers in the armed forces of the several countries joined together in freedom. Sir Anthony Eden said that the United Kingdom will not make any sudden or abrupt decision which might throw the whole military gear of our western unity into confusion, but he did state that the time has come for a reappraisal of our situation among the free nations. Within the limitations that security demands, would the minister say what is being done in this regard in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization? What happened at the last meeting of the NATO security committee with regard to this question? This matter is of paramount importance, for as long as our expenditures for military defence continue at their present heights to too great an extent the free nations find themselves in a position where they are unable to compete against the economic offensive of the U.S.S.R.
The U.S.S.R. can compete in commodity markets because price is of no consequence. The price at which it sells in order to compete successfully involves no fears for the U.S.S.R. The price which the U.S.S.R. is prepared to pay for cotton, wheat, rubber or other strategic products has had an effect in various parts of the world where these products are in surplus-I refer to products other than wheat in this regard-of undermining the determination of those nations to stand in resistance against the advance of communism. It is one o'clock.


The Deputy Chairman:: I should point out to the hon. member for Prince Albert at this time that he has spoken for more than 30 minutes, but of course with the unanimous consent of the committee he will be permitted to conclude his remarks this afternoon.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, at the time of the adjournment, I was summarizing the representations that I had to make. I had covered the questions of the need for maintaining military strength and for enlarging and expanding the concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I had also dealt

Supply- External Affairs with the question of trade and the new Russian pattern of offensive throughout the world, and had referred to the commonwealth prime ministers' meeting regarding which little information has as yet been given to parliament. In the London Observer I read as follows:
The economic challenge in Russia's new policy has been a dominating theme of the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London.
The range and scale of the Russian trade drive is at present small in comparison with the commercial activity of the west. But its totalitarian methods put the competitive free world at a disadvantage, and unless a way is found to match them, could enormously increase the Russian rewards.
I feel that the house should receive in detail the picture of the problem as the commonwealth prime ministers saw it and also of what means were arrived at, whether tentatively or finally, with regard to this matter. In the speech given by Mr. Shepilov -now the foreign minister-at the twentieth congress of the communist party we had a warning that this new type of offensive was to take place. He said this:
The countries of the socialist camp propose to test the advantages of the two social systems in competition in the arena of peaceful economy, not in rivalry on the battlefield . . . Socialism has become a world system which is gaining in stature and strength .	.	. Before the second war the
socialist system accounted for 17 per cent of the world's territory, 9 per cent of its population, 7 per cent of its industrial production; today "we" occupy more than 25 per cent of the world's territory,-
As compared with 17 per cent of the world's territory just before the war.
-comprise upwards of 35 per cent of its total population, and account for roughly 30 per cent of its industrial production.
Mr. Shepilov has since then become foreign minister, so that his words carry with them a peculiar importance and also an ominous warning to the free world. I ask the minister whether or not, in the interests of preserving and maintaining the strength of the British commonwealth in its crusade for freedom, there should be convened a British commonwealth trade conference to the end of rectifying the present dangerous position in which Canada finds itself in relation to the United States in buying almost $1 billion worth of goods a year more than the United States sells here. Does not that situation demand that effective and vital action be taken in order to expand our trade elsewhere? For it is only through trade that the debits of trade can be met by the credits of trade, regardless of how many countries that trade may include.
I say this to the minister. He pointed out-and in this I join with him-the fears of these people behind the iron curtain, these

countries that were subjugated by Stalin and also by his predecessor Lenin. I feel that these peoples who live in slavery must be made to realize that the free world has not forgotten them. The outbreak in east Berlin in 1953 revealed that there were cracks in the monolith of communist unity. Those cracks were again revealed to a larger extent in the recent uprising among the Polish people in Poznan. Those cracks reveal that communism faces increasing difficulties in restraining the pressure of freedom-loving people under their control.
A year ago, when I was in east Berlin, the number of refugees who were fleeing from communism to the west numbered about 10,000 a month, as I recall it. The number during the last month and in recent months has been up to 22,000 a month. This fact reveals clearly that however sternly the communist governments in those satellite countries look upon migrations from those countries, more and more of the peoples under their control are using every means at their disposal to escape from the tyranny under which they live. In "The Old regime" de Tocqueville said this of the French revolution:
The evils which are endured with patience so long as they are inevitable seem intolerable as soon as a hope can be entertained of escaping from them.
That is as true today as it was then. What has taken place in Poznan in Poland and what took place in East Germany show that there is a feeling of ferment. At this time when the U.S.S.R., in such grandiloquent terms, is espousing its conversion from the awfulness of Stalinism, I think that Canada and the western powers should give consideration to calling on the Soviet union to restore freedom to the subject nations of eastern Europe. Let us give them a message of hope. The United States did that after Poznan. The state department expressed sympathy with the families of the dead. They let those people know that they were not being forgotten. At this time, when the U.S.S.R. is endeavouring with all its might to lead the western world to believe that it has changed its attitude, I think that a declaration of moral support would give new hope to the peoples of the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, the Baltic states, east Germany and those elsewhere. It would keep burning their uncertain light of freedom. It would give to them a realization that the conscience of the free world believes that only in the restoration to freedom of the subject peoples can there be the achievement of an assured peace, something towards which all of us strive. Should we not also say this to the U.S.S.R. at this time: In

order to prove that what you are saying will be matched by what you are doing, you should carry out the principles which you accepted in paragraph 3 of the Atlantic charter. You should give to the peoples under your control the right to decide for themselves the form of government they will have.
Khrushchev has placed communist control on the horns of a dilemma. If in carrying out his avowed principles a small measure of freedom is granted to the people who are today subjected, then those people will ask for more and communist rule will be in danger. If, on the other hand, those subjected people are denied any further measure of freedom, then bitter resentments will ultimately bring about outbreaks of violence similar to those that have occurred in recent months.
Then, sir, it appears to me that if Khrushchev means what he says, should he not at this time, and should not Bulganin in association with him, grant to the people in slave camps, grant to those who have been the subject of mass deportation, the freedom which Khrushchev, Shepilov and Bulganin avowed in such eloquent terms? I cannot believe that the present leaders of the Kremlin are sincere when all they do is condemn Stalin but accept the benefits that flow from the tyrannical practices of Stalin. They renounce what he did but they keep what he illegally got. To renounce wrongdoing, the wrongdoing of the thief and the plunderer, and to keep the bounty which was the result of that wrongdoing, does not carry with it a sense of conviction of repentance for wrongdoing and a desire for a better life.
Then, sir, I should like to have heard the minister deal as well with the concept which particularly is being adopted by the United States and also by Britain, namely, the expansion of economic assistance to the underdeveloped countries, economic assistance comprised within the broader concepts of defence. As the president of the United States has said, every dollar we put into this kind of thing, if it is intelligently spent, is to my mind in the long run worth every $5 we are putting into shared defence because, in the long run, it is a constructive thing. What consideration is being given of a reassessment of the question of the amount that should be spent on tanks, guns and ships and the amount that should be made available for underdeveloped countries?
I am not thinking of the kind of policy, however, that makes promises and does not carry them out or makes promises of economic assistance based on the tractability of the receiving nations. One of the reasons for the Suez situation today is the fact that the
Supply-External Affairs United States made certain promises, in which Britain co-operated to a degree, of assistance, fearing apparently that the U.S.S.R. was going to grant a large amount of assistance to Egypt. The promise was made but it was not kept for reasons that were given some two weeks ago. Then the nature of the U.S.S.R. policy of blackmail became apparent, for the U.S.S.R. reneged on its promises which indeed had caused in large measure the promises of assistance made by the United States. I am not speaking of assistance based on the need of the receiver to accede to the political philosophies of the free world but assistance to raise the standard, and without strings.
I should like to ask the minister to outline, if he will in reply, whether there has been a degree of unified policy between Britain, the United States, France and the other nations in this regard, for certainly the U.S.S.R. is striding across the world today, amongst the underdeveloped countries in particular, and with promises of economic assistance is asking those countries in effect to trade their freedom for a generation for the security of today.
Those are but a few matters that I thought I would bring before the committee at this time. I feel that Canada's position in the world in which we live might be one far beyond its economic power and population. Disarmament conferences there have been, although they are postponed now apparently until after the United States election. Peace and its achievements should not be dependent upon or suspended by elections in any of the free nations, as I see it. Be that as it may, free men today must not weary. All of us must endeavour to do our part to achieve a climate of peace, maintain our strength and practise the principles in which we believe. We should make democracy work in our own midst and in the market places of world competition, the competition of coexistence, be able to show that our product is better than theirs. That is our responsibility in the long run. In the shorter view, it is to preserve peace by the maintenance of our defences, by the realization of what freedom means and at the same time by doing our part to be sure that those nations behind the iron curtain, who love freedom as we love freedom, have not been and will not be forgotten.


Mr. Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that what is uppermost in the minds of members of parliament and, I should imagine, in the minds of a vast majority of the population, is what is the goal of the U.S.S.R., what is the meaning in the changes which have taken place there?

Supply-External Affairs I think the changes of the moment have meant a certain slackening in tension which I for one welcome. I would refuse to make any forecast as to the future because it is as murky and obscure to me as it is to any other member. Nevertheless, I still retain a fairly healthy degree of scepticism as to the future plans of the Soviet union.
The member for Prince Albert suggested that Khrushchev was perhaps being impaled on the horns of a dilemma. I think that gentleman is much too shrewd an operator to be so impaled. In the near future the obvious tactics of the Soviet union are going to urge the underprivileged people to fight for their own freedom, while refusing that very freedom to the people who are within the power of the Soviet union. Nevertheless, changes are taking place and the changes unhappily are not all to our benefit. Only a year ago almost to the week there was a meeting in Geneva, a meeting at the summit, a very highly touted meeting, which received publicity the world over, at which the leaders of some of the great nations attended. I think that if one were to draw or plot a graph of the progress of the plans of the Soviet union in the past year that graph would slope upward, and if we were to draw a graph of the progress of the west in the past year it would go down. The reason for that unhappily is the lamentable lack of leadership which the west has been showing, and none of us is guiltless. That was proved perhaps most cruelly by Walter Lippman, when he said in an article some months ago that the leadership of the west is in the hands of preoccupied and harried men in London, of weak and distracted men in Paris, of a very old man in Bonn and a sick man in Washington. That being so, there is none of that moral and political leadership which I am sure many of us in this house would like to see.
The soviets are battling us in the field of ideas and at the moment they prevail and we *do not understand why. It is difficult to understand, from our vantage point, because we know that when they speak to the underprivileged people of the world about the horrors of colonialism the Soviet union itself is the greatest colonial power in the world and that within its own confines it has taken masses of people into slavery in Siberia.
The Soviet union talks of peace, yet only a few months ago it armed Egypt in such a way that Egypt has become a dire threat to peace. The Soviet union wants to ban the atom bomb, yet is does nothing effective, and oddly enough it is selling this curious propaganda to the peoples of the world. It is time we in the west called the bluff of the


Soviet union. It means we have to act rather differently from what we have in the past.
Certainly, there are changes taking place in the Soviet union. The heady wine of freedom is fermenting. We see it in Poland, though it is not in the Soviet union but is a satellite. We see it amongst the workers of Poznan and, if we were doing our job intelligently, we would be showing the peoples of the world just what happens to the workers of any country who rebel against the power of the Soviet union. That desire for freedom is showing itself in Czechoslovakia today, in Hungary and within the Soviet union itself in the Ukraine. There is a country which is much older than Russia, a country which has a greater history in many ways than Russia, a country which has often been submerged throughout the course of history and which yet has always survived and emerged because of the desire of its people for freedom, a desire which we see expressed in our own country, for I disagree with the minister that the Slav is essentially one who yields to autocracy. We have many people of Slav descent in our country who are amongst the strongest fighters for freedom. If that is so here, then it is so also in the people in the land from whose loins they sprang.
We have, then, to give, as was suggested by the hon. member for Prince Albert, encouragement to those people. No one will suggest for a moment that we go to war to liberate them. That is not in the minds of anybody, but there is deep-seated within the human mind arid the human soul this hope and desire for freedom, and somehow we have to convey to them our intention that eventually they are going to be free, as we know freedom.
I will admit the obvious fact that in the world of power politics today one cannot negotiate from weakness; but we have, in my judgment, placed far too much emphasis ori arms and defence pacts, with the result that we are not able to sell the many worthwhile beliefs which we accept. Today there is a different atmosphere and it has us baffled. We knew how to deal with the blustering and belligerent Stalin. We do not know how to deal with the blandishments and lures of Khrushchev. We have not yet adjusted to the new system which apparently is prevailing.
As I said, we do not know how long this is going to last. We know now that every crime we have laid at the doors of the Kremlin has been amply confirmed; but I suspect the error we are still making is that which we have continued to make. We are fighting international communism on the

ground of international communism instead of on the basis of our own specific ideas, hopes and aspirations, not only for ourselves but for the people of the world; we are fighting in an entirely negative sense, and yet the west has a great contribution to make. We have not managed to get over to the peoples of the world what this contribution is-our concepts of law, our concepts of impartial justice, our concept of representative government, our concept of the freedom of the individual. These are the things we believe in. For some reason we have failed miserably and lamentably in letting the world know that these are the positive, affirmative things we believe in, these are the things that make life worth living for any human being. But all of them have been smothered in our insistence on pacts.
Let me remind the hon. member for Prince Albert that we cannot go to the people of Asia and say we believe in these things and still ask them to join in SEATO or in any of the rest of the pacts that they themselves abhor and will have nothing to do with. What do we want these pacts for? The people of Asia believe we want them, and with much justification, to defend ourselves, and they are not interested in defending us. On the other hand, were we to go to them, the underprivileged people, the colonial peoples who still exist, and say to them, "We want to come to your defence against the evils of poverty and we are prepared to do something about it without any strings attached." then I am sure we would get much farther.
Today we are losing the political battle because of our insistence on securing alliances. Today our military security depends upon political security, and that was never more demonstrated than by the situation we see in Cyprus. The United Kingdom would have been much more secure had they come to terms with the Cypriots, but we have a situation there which has in it the elements of tragedy as we have the elements of tragedy in Algeria. We should remember that Algeria is different from Tunisia and Morocco, but in both these cases repression will not make friends; repression is not the answer in either of those instances.
Some terrible errors have been made and we refuse to learn, but unfortunately the eyes of Asia are on every mistake and every error which we make. Yet all the time we get statements, mostly emanating from Washington, which would lull us into a sense of false security. We have Mr. Dulles saying that the Soviet union has failed to keep up with the rest of the world. What a piece
Supply-External Affairs of utter absurdity. Then we have his statement about leading the western world to the brink of war, to be rescued later by his statesmanship. Mr. Dulles may deceive himself, but I am sure he does not delude other people in this world.
Obviously the battle today is on other fronts. The minister referred just in passing to what was happening to industry in the Soviet union. I should like to document a little more what he said. The Soviet union is going ahead at a great rate with its industrialization. According to reports issued by Lloyd's bank a few months ago, in 1950 the industrial production of the Soviet union was equal to 35 per cent of the industrial production of the United States. By 1955 the industrial production of the Soviet union was equal to 50 per cent of that of the United States. In other words, during those years United States production increased by 24 per cent while Soviet production had increased by 75 per cent. This is part of a deliberate plan of the Soviet union.
They are making progress so much faster than we are in so many ways, and one way in particular is in the field of professional manpower. I suppose hon. members got in the mail, as I did the other day, an extract from a magazine called Chemistry in Canada containing an article by Garnet Page, general manager of the Chemical Institute of Canada. Referring to the Soviet union he had this to say:
It is expected that 71,200 engineers will graduate in June, 1956, as compared to 36,000 in 1950, and that the goal of the present five-year plan to graduate 100,000 engineers in 1960 will be realized, since the students are already enrolled in the preparatory courses in sufficient numbers.
The total number of university and institute graduates from 1946 to 1950 was 652,000, from 1951 to 1955 was 1,120,000, and the goal of the sixth five-year plan, 1956 to 1960, is 4,000,000.
The article goes on in similar vein. There is confirmation of that in the statement of Mr. Allen Dulles, director of the United States central intelligence agency, who said not long ago that in the decade ending in 1960 the Soviet union will have 1,200,000 scientifically trained men, and that at that time they may outnumber the United States. It is conceivable that they may outnumber the United States, but as of this moment, on a per thousand basis, those in universities in the Soviet union outnumber those in Canadian universities by the ratio of five to two. It is time from the point of view of defence if for no other reason, that we paid greater attention to the training and education of technicians in this country. But heaven forbid that the day would ever come in Canada when we forget the humanities, because when we forget them we will have forgotten the most of what is worth while in life.

Supply-External Affairs
Yet we are living in a technical era and we are going to need the help of technical men, scientists, engineers and so on. As part of our national defence we ought to be making abundantly certain that we have a reservoir of trained talent. But that is not being done, first because it is apparently regarded as not being important and, second, because the government does not care to support the universities. They argue that that would be in the nature of aid to education. I suppose within limits the government could be right, but from the point of view of the well-being of the community as a whole I insist that they are quite wrong. Our universities must be aided and our students must be aided so that we can produce the requisite number of technicians, engineers and even philosophers which a society such as ours requires.
That is a problem which the government will have to tackle, but there are other problems in the international sphere which are of course much more immediate. One we see confronting us is the situation in the Middle East. There is something ironical about that situation. Nations are insisting that there must be complete freedom of travel through the Suez canal. I suppose it depends upon whose ox is being gored, but the Egyptians would not permit the state of Israel to send ships through the canal and that action was rebuked by a resolution passed by the United Nations. Nothing else was done but when Nasser threatened the larger powers, or when they thought he had threatened them, then action is rapid.
But what sort of action can take place? After all, the ownership of the Suez canal is not the business of Canada. We have no shareholdings in that operation. It is only when it becomes apparent that disagreement over the canal may lead to war that we become directly interested. But the ownership per se of the Suez canal does not mean very much to us. On the other hand, the right of a maritime power such as we are to freedom of access to the Suez is most important. We want to see it maintained. But we do not think this freedom can be guaranteed best by a small group of powers guaranteeing it. As the minister said today, we believe that this should be decided by the United Nations and that control should ultimately vest with the United Nations.
The minister put in a qualifying clause, "if practicable". I am convinced it is quite practicable to do that if the will is there. I am getting rather tired of the continual bypassing of the United Nations by the big powers and by some of the smaller ones as well. The United Nations is there to be used.


It should be made as far as we can into a virile international instrument and that can be done only if it is used more than it is at the present time when problems arise.
I see no reason to believe that war will break out because of what Nasser has threatened to do. The main thing to remember is that to send warships there or to have a demonstration of power would be a piece of fatuity which would only be excelled by going to war over this issue. It can be settled in other ways and I think it must be settled through the United Nations. That is also the view of my colleagues.
Some reckless move in the middle east might conceivably drive Egypt to war. Egypt would not go to war with a great power, but if Nasser wishes to distract the attention of the people from what he might consider to be an affront to Egypt he might conceivably think of a war with Israel. It has been part of our general policy throughout the last few years to preserve as far as possible a balance of armaments in that area, yet we know that that is not completely possible. Israel, a nation of 1,750,000 people, cannot afford to arm to the extent of several nations with a population of over 40 million people, but nevertheless the imbalance today is much too serious and in my judgment we have to do something to redress it.
What we ought to do, in my judgment again, is to give Israel the aid she is asking in the form of aircraft to combat any attempted aggression. Israel, I am afraid, is on her own. I see no chance of peace coming in the Middle East at one fell swoop. We shall not see it for a number of years and then only by nibbling off one outstanding problem after another. That, I think, is what General Burns has been trying to do, and I join with the minister in his tribute to General Burns on his great service to the United Nations and indirectly the credit he has brought Canada.
However, there might be another way to restore some sort of peace in the Middle East. The West may not like it, but I see no alternative, if my judgment is right that peace there in the next few years is almost impossible of attainment. We have to approach the Egyptians and the Arab peoples and offer them the capital assistance they need if they are going to improve the conditions of the people who live in their countries. We should not do it unilaterally or bilaterally or trilaterally; we should do it through the United Nations, which is the proper vehicle for this purpose. The proposition should be put to the people of the Arab countries and to Egypt that the necessary money will be

loaned to them for constructive social purposes if they are prepared to put up a similar amount of money and the United Nations would supervise, as far as it can, whatever construction takes place.
The hope behind that would be that, if there is a genuine desire on the part of the Arab states and Egypt to improve the conditions of their people, then the money they will put into social improvements will be such that they will not be able to devote as much as they do now to arms, and therefore in a negative way we might perhaps achieve some sort of peace within that area. The situation in the Middle East is serious, but there are no man-made problems which are insoluble if we are sufficiently generous and sufficiently wise.
There is another problem which will be facing us in the near future, that of Germany and NATO. I do not intend to discuss NATO at this present juncture, though I hope I shall later, but I am going to say this. The Dulles-Adenauer coalition in Germany is not going to work. The people of Germany want more than anything else today to be united. The policy of Mr. Dulles and Mr. Adenauer has failed dismally; in fact, it has ground to a stop. They have no answer to the problems and to the requests of the people of Germany for unity. Next year there is going to be an election there, and next year I suspect the political climate will be quite different within the government there, and then Mr. Dulles will be faced with an agonizing reappraisal indeed if the Germans decide that they are going to withdraw from NATO and, as a quid pro quo, among other things, go to the Russians to get the unity they desire.
However, I wish to talk for a few moments about Asia. All is not so quiet on the eastern front as perhaps we might imagine. It is true that there is nothing in the headlines but, although the situation of the offshore islands at this moment is perhaps calm, although the waters off Formosa are quiet, that does not mean to say that this will continue for any length of time. We know, and we have history to prove it within the past few years, that, whenever the west became interested and involved in something in this part of the world, some incident would break out in Asia. That is a matter we ought to remember.
The minister said today that the policy of die government on Asia has not changed. I regret that, although I must say that our policy has not changed either. We still believe that the people of Formosa have the right to decide for themselves how they are going to be governed. We still think it would be the better part of wisdom, no
Supply-External Affairs matter how much we dislike the Mao Tse-tung government, to have China admitted into the United Nations. That country cannot be kept out indefinitely, it is a piece of nonsense to suppose that Chiang Kai-shek on Formosa represents the people of China today. Why do we not do it? Perhaps there are domestic reasons but there is also another.
One of the aspects of our policy which I do not like and with which I disagree is that too often we and other nations find ourselves prisoners of a United States political system. Whenever there is an election, whether it be a presidential election or a congressional election, practically every problem in international affairs bogs down and comes to a stop for at least six months until these elections are decided. Why should we have to put up with this? We are a reasonably independent nation. Why must we always wait for the Americans to decide what they are going to do before we make up our own minds? I think it is high time we in Canada decided what policy we were going to pursue in Asia and then carry it out.
The future of Asia is going to determine the future of the world. We cannot get away from that. There you have a struggle for leadership: India is striving on the one hand and in a democratic way for leadership; China striving the other way, in the communist way, for leadership. Nehru the democratic socialist; Mao the communist; which is going to be successful? Upon that answer depends Asia, for I am certain that India's future will determine the future of Asia, as I am certain that if India goes the Chinese way all Asia goes that way.
We have not yet in North America tried to understand the Asian mentality, and it is not too difficult to understand if we, as human beings, put ourselves into the position of human beings in Asia with the problems with which they are confronted. One of the things with which we would be most imbued would be a hatred of colonialism. One of the things with which we would be most imbued would be a hatred of domination by the white man, to which these people have been subject for many decades and in some cases centuries. We have a terrible legacy to live down, and it is not going to be easy. Yet we have the spectacle today of Mr. Nehru, trying to achieve democratic government and to give his people that hope which is their right and their due. We have Mao trying in his communistic way to give the people of China the hope which he feels is their due. We cannot forget that with the great mass of Asians, despair has been their daily companion and hopelessness has been their inevitable lot. But now they are seeing

Supply-External Affairs gleams of hope. Where are they going to see the most hope, in the democratic country which is being built in India or the communist country which is being built in China?
We have a big task to do in Asia. There is a terrific amount of ignorance of India in the United States, and in many parts a great hatred of India and of Nehru. We have prided ourselves, not altogether rightly, in the past on being an interpreter between the United Kingdom and the United States, but perhaps we could perform a very useful function if we were to try to interpret India to the United States, and also, of course, the United States to India. I think that there we should be performing a very valuable public duty. But what we have to remember above all is that India has really no sense of identity with the western world. We are proud to call the Indians our friends; the relationship between the two countries is excellent; but India is going to look at its problems with the eyes of Asia and not with the eyes of North America. One of the problems the Indians have to overcome is the problem of poverty within their own country. All the people of Asia want equality with the west, but there is only one way they can get that equality, and that is by industrialization.
If they are going to industrialize within each country separately then they are going to depend upon the savings of the workers, the farmers and the businessmen of the country, and there are not enough savings to go in for industrialization in any wide way. The alternative is either, to use a word I dislike, the Sovietization of the economy or else we in the west who are blessed with a surfeit of the world's goods come to their aid. Again I say this should not be done bilaterally or in any other way but through the United Nations. That money should be lent at the lowest possible rates of interest and lent, of course, without any strings attached. If we do not rescue Asia from the worst menace, the worst menaces really, of industrialization, then I am afraid Asia will side with the communist powers no matter where they may be. It boils down to this one ineluctable fact, that the system which wins Asia wins the world.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Chairman, today the committee is being called upon to approve the proposed expenditures for the Department of External Affairs for this year. The amount, of course, is of vital importance but I think there is something of greater importance than that and it is the policy which is being followed by the government and by the Department of External Affairs for the furtherance of which this money is requested. We have been considering in the past days the military


aspects of our national defence program, and this may be looked upon more as the political and diplomatic phase of that same program. The international scene remains, as has been stated, disturbed and threatening, and certainly with the events that are now taking place, especially Egypt's nationalization of the Suez canal, the situation seems to be becoming worse instead of better.
This afternoon I should like to refer to a number of problems that are confronting the world in general and at the same time remind ourselves of the place that Canada occupies on the stage of world affairs. It has been my privilege to be a member of the committee on external affairs for the past three sessions and I may say I have found it intensely interesting, for there we have the opportunity of getting a little more of the detailed information than is possible in a committee of the house or in any other way.
This year we had statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs followed by various officials of his department, Mr. Nik Cavell, General McNaughton and others who made reference to the particular matters for which they were responsible, listening to the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on the introduction of his estimates today, we had another view of the international situation from one who of course is in a position to know more about it than any other member of the house. I often think that we who take part in these debates speak at a great disadvantage because of the fact that we are dependent largely upon newspaper reports, magazine articles and brief reports given by the minister from time to time in trying to gather up fragments here and there and put them together in order to try to form a picture of world conditions from the various segments that are given to us.
However, as we listened to the minister today there was one thing that impressed me very definitely, and that was the continued firm attitude that the minister is taking with regard to Soviet attempts to, shall I say, disarm the western powers and get them to the place where they will soften up, relax their vigilance and thus perhaps give further advantage to the aggressive designs of Russian communism. I should like to commend the minister for the statement he made in this regard and for the attitude he has taken in this respect. Certainly we would request and urge that that policy be maintained in the interests of peace and freedom.
Therefore, in thinking of these particular matters that have been called to our attention today and having also listened to some

of the other speakers who have taken part in the debate, I feel I should like to make a few comments and observations with regard to external affairs. I am not going to cover all the different fields. It may be that an opportunity will be presented for others of this group to take part in the debate. The hon. member for New Westminster in particular will be taking part because he had the opportunity of attending the session of the United Nations organization last fall and was also a member of the delegation to the NATO conference. Therefore I will leave those two matters to be dealt with by him.
As we look at the world today and face the situation we are reminded that the threat of communism is a continuing threat. Much has been said and written about the changes in Russia's internal policy. Perhaps we are interested in that aspect of the situation but certainly we are interested to a much greater extent in the seeming changes in Russia's external policy. Reference has been made today to the iron regime of Stalin, and of course we all realize that in his day a strong iron hand was exercised in every aspect of the economy and every aspect of Russian policy. There is some hope that at the present time that iron grip has been relaxed and that greater liberty and freedom are being given. But again I would say that personally I am not prepared to accept even that suggestion.
There may be a little different approach, there may be a little different strategy used, but certainly I feel that, as has been indicated by very recent occurrences, the iron rule of communism still is maintained in the Soviet union. There is talk of co-existence which means as far as communism is concerned no existence for those who disagree with them. There have been smiles instead of frowns, but I do not think that we can depend too much upon that as an indication of any fundamental change in the policy of the Soviet union. We are reminded of some of the statements that have been made quite recently in this particular respect, especially by Mr. Khrushchev. I have a copy of the NATO letter of June 1, 1956 in which is found an excerpt from a statement by Khrushchev used by Lord Ismay in certain remarks he made. The pertinent part reads as follows:
If we could believe that these changes in tactics meant a real change of heart, how happy we would all be! But are we justified in basing our plans on that belief? Quite recently Khrushchev himself gave us the answer. This is what he said: "The west say that Soviet leaders smile, but that their actions do not match their smiles. But I assure them that the smiles are sincere. They are not artificial. We wish to live in peace. But if anyone thinks that our smile means that we abandon the teachings of Marx and Lenin or abandon our communist road, then they are fooling themselves.
Supply-External Affairs
In putting that alongside the smiles that have appeared from time to time, I think we would be well advised to remember the frowns and to remember that, in the final analysis, the great plan of communism has not changed in the least.
The suggestion has been made-and I believe it is true-that to a considerable extent the cold war has moved into the realm of economic and political warfare. What I do not like about the thing is this, there are those who say that the policy has changed, that the Soviets have changed their program and have changed their plans and that they are now going to use economic and political measures instead of military means. I quite agree that they are using these economic and political aspects of the cold war, but I do not believe they have given up their idea, their intention and their determination to use the hot war and military means in order to achieve their ends if they are not able to achieve them by these other methods.
We have been greatly interested in reading in the last few days of events as they have been taking place in various Soviet satellite nations. We find that in the different countries-and also in the countries of the free world-the communist supporters and sympathizers have been having a difficult time to adjust their thinking and their planning to the meanderings of the Soviet and Kremlin line. However, as the minister stated this morning, it seems as though they are making the adjustment. Their allegiance, I would say, is still with the Kremlin rather than with the respective nations in which they reside. Hence we hear of the reports of the riots in Poznan. I have here an article-I am not going to read it-talking about the unrest and turmoil in the Baltic states. I have another one with reference to the situation in Tibet. This is from the Ottawa Citizen of July 31 and it reads as follows:
Reports from Tibet said today rebel Tibetan tribesmen massacred a delegation of several hundred Chinese communists after peace talks broke up in a quarrel.
Those are indications that all is not well in these satellite nations, the nations that are today ruled by the Kremlin, whether directly of indirectly. These people are giving vent to their feelings by taking their lives in their hands and staging riots and demonstrations in order to demonstrate the fact that they still value freedom and are willing to die for it. So today it would appear as I have said, that all is not well in these particular countries. As has been said by other speakers today-I have referred to the matter previously-I believe that before Russia can expect the free nations of the world to accept her propositions at their

Supply-External Affairs taking a firm stand, even although the minister seems to be hedgehopping at times and according to reports in the newspapers, it would seem as though he was inclined over to this side. One writer even said the minister implied that the time was going to come when public opinion would force the government into that position. Whether that report is right I am not sure. But, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the minister himself should not assume, as I have said before, that the Canadian people are in favour of this, because I believe that the great mass of the Canadian people are still opposed to the recognition of Red China and its taking a seat in the United Nations until it has demonstrated the fact that it is a peace-loving nation, and apparently events in the last days have not indicated that in the least.
What is Canada's foreign policy? I wish the minister would make a clear-cut statement setting out the basic principles outlining our policies. Let me ask this question. Is the minister completely in favour of the national sovereignty of Canada or is he inclined to neutralism? I ask that question because certain statements that have been made recently cause me to wonder. Here is one from the Ottawa Citizen of July 11, 1956:
Pearson Decries Atlantic Union
The second paragraph reads:
"The 15 member countries ol NATO are much impressed with the need for greater non-military co-operation," Mr. Pearson remarked, "but, as a matter of personal politics, establishment of an Atlantic union-a centralized sovereign federalized state is just not feasible at this time."
In the magazine Freedom and Union for July and August, 1956, there is an account of the minister's address to the Englishspeaking union in London on April 30, in which the minister said:
Security, peace and ordered progress call for action on a wider basis than that of the national community. This does not mean, however, that we should move at once into world government or some form of Atlantic union or broad political federation with a central legislature and executive, a common citizenship, currency, and budget, a single foreign policy and defence establishment under central control; in short, with all the institutions of a federal state.
Those who advocate such schemes of federation do so from the highest of motives. They perform, I think, a good and useful service in preparing public opinion for the political changes which will undoubtedly be called for in the future to promote international co-operation.
In the first statement, he said, we do not believe in moving immediately into world government. What do the world government people want? I am reading from the Ottawa Citizen of June 13, 1956:
World federalists of Canada urged external affairs department officials during the weekend to consider (proposed amendments to the United Nations

charter that would make the United Nations a world government of limited power.
The federalists, who held their meeting here Saturday, suggested Canada should "at the appropriate time" support a conference to review the United Nations charter and then put forward amendments that would give the world organization power to control arms and prevent war.
Now, I ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, is he in favour of world government, or is he in favour of the sovereign rights of individual nations? We are reading a great deal about the self-determination, and so on, of peoples, and yet on the one hand we have been crying loudly for the self-determination of peoples, the right to make their choice, and on the other hand the same people want to have a world government that will dictate policies to the entire world. Where are we going?
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I should like to present some of the policies which I believe are essential and which should be adopted and followed by this government:	First,
industrial rivalry is one of the greatest single factors leading to international conflict; therefore, there must be the establishment of sound trade policies designed to accomplish the mutually satisfactory exchange of goods between nations. Second, self-determination of peoples; third, the maintenance and strengthening of Canada's place in the British commonwealth; fourth, the retention of Canada's sovereign authority to govern her affairs in accordance with the will of the Canadian people; fifth, active participation in plans of assistance designed to promote the welfare of all peoples of the world; sixth, co-operation in zonal pacts where such arrangements are considered desirable and necessary for the safety of the free world.


Mr. Boisvert:: Mr. Chairman, my first words will be to thank very much the hon. member for Prince Albert for the reference he made today to my humble person in connection with the committee on external affairs. What he said was very pleasant, but I think his remarks should be directed to every member of the committee, because of the wonderful co-operation they granted me in carrying on the business of this very important committee.
Today, I do not intend to dwell on what I shall call the headaches of our world. Of course, everybody knows that the world has those headaches, and we have indications of it today in Algeria, in the Middle East and in Asia. I think the ground was well covered by the previous speaker in this debate. We, of course, should remember that in the past we have gone through some ordeals in Korea, in Morocco and in Tunisia and those problems were solved to the satisfaction of the whole world with the cooperation of the United Nations. Therefore,

It is my hope that what we see today in the stormy world in which we live might be settled in the same way by following the same pattern.
I intend to speak about only one problem, namely, the problem of neutralism in the world. Before doing so, I wish, as a supporter of this government, to commend and praise the government and the words and deeds of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in keeping our country on the side of making peace and assuring to the world a security which is badly needed, rather than to drive Canada toward a state of war. No one more than our Secretary of State for External Affairs has done a greater and better job to save the peace of the world since I have been in this parliament, and I am glad today to pay a great tribute to his work in that direction.
Let me come now to the problem of neutralism. I know that theory is one that is sponsored by the leader of a great country, the republic of India. We have known before in international law of another principle -we call it neutrality. How many countries have lost through being neutral in these days and particularly in the period ending with 1914 when the first world war started. Some countries in Europe had agreements with other countries assuring their neutrality. But the fact is that neutrality did not mean one thing at that time.
We are glad to develop in each country a spirit of neutrality which would mean that we should assure any policy which would encourage some countries to try to establish peace by the only means known to human beings, which is getting ready to defend a country if the country or any country is attacked by a prospective enemy.
It is peculiar to find out that countries advocating such international policies are on the other hand asking us for money and technicians to develop inside ther own frontiers a self-supporting economy. I agree with that entirely, but it seems to me if we are going to live in a world where neutrality will develop in each country, if on the other hand we are going to give our money and technicians to develop a self-supporting economy, in my opinion that is something difficult to reconcile.
So between a policy of getting into a war at any price and getting peace, or trying very hard and striving for it by all means to secure peace, I would choose to maintain our connections with those countries which have the same philosophy and have built up a system of defence without aiming at going to war with anybody and trying to show to some countries in the world that we intend 67509-433
Supply-External Affairs to secure peace and only peace by all means without aiming at anything which could bring Canada into conflict with any country.
It is a very difficult problem to reconcile those ideas, but I will rest my case with the present government and I will rest my case with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure that Canada will be maintained at peace, that Canada in the years to come will favour peace by peaceful means, assuring not only to Canada the security we need but also helping other countries in the world which have the same willingness to live in peace for the good of humanity. I shall say nothing else today, except to conclude with a few words in French.
(Translation) :
I do think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and the government which he so worthily represents, will continue to serve the cause of peace by continuing to assist those countries which, like Canada, are seeking to establish peace in the world while ensuring their own security.
(Text) :


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Chairman, at the outset let me say a brief word concerning the deliberations of the standing committee on external affairs. As in the past, I think the deliberations of that committee were most useful. The committee carried on its work in good spirit and with a co-operative attitude. I have long contended in this house that the standing committee on external affairs by its review of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs furnishes a useful example of how estimates should be treated for some of the other departments.
I take it that at this stage of the discussion we are confining our remarks to general statements and that at a later point we may address ourselves to a detailed consideration of individual items in the estimates.
The opening statement this morning of the Secretary of State for External Affairs covered a very limited field. I would be the first to acknowledge that the situation in the world today in many quarters is fluid and that dangerous elements exist, but there were some startling omissions in the statement made by the minister. I should like to mem-tion several matters which I think the minister has side-stepped and which because of their importance warranted some statement on his behalf.
First is the current situation following the seizure of the assets of the Suez canal company by the government of Egypt. That matter received scanty treatment from the minister this morning. In a situation as formidable and as threatening as this we
6808	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs cannot as a country content ourselves with taking the lofty attitude of relatively distant spectators. This is a most serious matter for all countries of the western world. Colonel Nasser's seizure of the canal presents a serious and inescapable issue. It is the issue of main force on the one hand, and the role of international law and the respect for solemn obligations, on the other. In that situation I do not see how Canada properly can refrain from making her position known.
Here is a great opportunity for the United Nations and for Canada as a member of the United Nations unless Russia takes steps to prevent the United Nations from taking effective action. A fair question to be asked in this house is:	Where does Canada stand?
The stand of Canada and the stand of the government ought to be more clearly made known than it seems to me the minister succeeded in doing this morning in his very brief statement. Perhaps he will enlarge on this later.
The second significant omission concerns the situation in the Near and Middle East.
I expect that a question which has been going through the minds of most of us is whether the situation arising out of Egypt's seizure of the Suez canal will affect the attitude of the Canadian government toward the long-pending application of the government of Israel for a permit to purchase 24 Canadian Sabre jet airplanes. This application has been pending for many months. Questions have been repeatedly asked in this house as to when the government is going to make a decision, but we have been met with vague and evasive statements. Now I ask the minister if the situation developing in that area of the world out of the seizure by Egypt of the Suez canal is going to have a bearing on the attitude of the government in relation to this application. If so, what is that bearing, and when may a decision be expected by the house?
The third matter that was not touched on was the matter of the situation in Burma, brought to our attention in a rather startling way yesterday by the headlines indicating an invasion of Burmese territory by troops of the communist government of China. The minister did not even mention that subject in his statement this morning. When he was asked about it later by the hon. member for Vaneouver-Quadra, he did offer some reassurance in his indication that the situation might prove to be exaggerated, but this raises another question. We may well hope that the reports are exaggerated. We shall follow with interest the authentic reports that come out of that part of the world, but, whether the report is exaggerated or whether the invasion is as serious as had been pictured in the 

first reports, the question naturally arises, and I put it to the minister, does this latest military act on the part of the Chinese communist government have any bearing upon the attitude of the Canadian government in reference to the recognition of the so-called people's government at Peking?
We have been reading in the press of late also about military activities of the communist Chinese forces in Tibet following the over-running of that country some time ago by the Chinese forces. Has that situation any bearing upon the attitude of the Canadian government in reference to the recognition of the people's government at Peking? These are questions that the house is entitled to have answered.
Another matter that significantly found no place in the minister's remarks this morning was the Colombo plan. I recognize that the minister did not set about to make a full review of world affairs, but I mention this matter now because I think that the minister should have something to say by way of enlightenment of the house on the attitude of the government in this regard.
We are dealing this year with a proposed increase of about $8 million in the appropriation for the Colombo plan. The committee on external affairs had two very interesting and instructive meetings with Captain Nik Cavell, the administrator for Canada of aid under the Colombo plan, an official who enjoys the confidence of the committee and, I am sure, the confidence of all members of this house. I think I have expressed my own view in the past that Canada is fortunate to have as the administrator of aid under this plan an official of the competence and long experience in the Far East of Captain Cavell.
It has seemed to me for some time that there is more support for extended aid under the Colombo plan in this house than the government has been prepared to advocate. As to the need that exists in the Far East for this kind of aid, Captain Cavell left no room for doubt in the mind of anyone who heard him or who has subsequently read his testimony. Let us just mention one or two of the things that Captain Cavell said on that point. As shown at page 148, I said to him:
But you have made it quite plain that aid is going to continue throughout the lifetime of every one in this room?


Mr. Cavell:: I think that is so, in some form or other.
In the provision of aid to the recipient countries under the Colombo plan, the purpose, of course, is to enable them, through the provision of forms of capital assistance, to help themselves. It is a sound approach. The need is very great. It is not going to be met

in a few years. We are dealing here with a continuing problem, a problem that the world is going to face for a long time to come, and we in Canada must be realistic in our appreciation of the scope and extent of the problem.
Further, Mr. Cavell was asked, as shown on page 198, as to the projects that the recipient countries under the Colombo plan had submitted for approval, and he outlined those at some length. I asked him this question:
Q. Those are projects for which, if you had the money, you would then have studied in order to determine their soundness?
A. If we had more money.
Q. Yes.
A. Sir, I would like to say that there is no limit to the amount of money which we could spend if we took on everything which those countries wanted done.
It is quite evident that there is need of unlimited proportions. Whilst the house, I am sure, will welcome the increase in the appropriation this year of $8 million for a specific project under Colombo aid, nevertheless there is, it seems to me, strong support in this house for more effective aid than the government has yet been prepared to recommend to the house. All the events that are occurring in the world today point unmistakably to the importance of plans of this kind and the extent of the need that they may assist in meeting.
There are several other factors in world strategy and in the present world outlook upon which the minister may have opportunity to comment later. So far as Europe is concerned, I should like to submit to the house that Germany is still the most important situation in Europe today. The division of Germany is the biggest political problem and the biggest problem confronting our hopes of preserving world peace in Europe.
The Russian attitude towards Germany and towards the German desire for reunification has evidently been stiffening in recent months. I do not think that hon. members can overlook the fact that the German government, headed by Chancellor Adenauer, has displayed considerable alarm of late- not just disturbance, but alarm-over what are thought to be indications that the countries that are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization are relaxing their efforts and taking a less serious view of the world situation and particularly the European aspects of it, than they did before.
That leads me to say, concerning NATO, that I think that we cannot afford to contemplate any weakening in NATO under present conditions. I think the minister agreed with that point of view in his testimony before the committee. The fact 67509-433J
Supply-External Affairs that the Russians today most want to weaken NATO surely is enough to prove the necessity on our part of keeping NATO strong. That is why in the committee we asked the minister to take what steps might lie within his power to make the North Atlantic Treaty Organization effective in all respects, not merely the military aspects of it but the economic purposes as well. The minister has said that the report of the three-man committee will be available in October, and we shall await it with keen interest.
For, sir, while everyone seems to agree that the threat of military aggression in the world has receded markedly in the last 12 months, nevertheless the threat of economic aggression taking the place of the cold war is very formidable indeed; revolutionary communism with a world purpose, directed from the Kremlin, by economic tactics, is extending its influence throughout the world and is experiencing a measure of success that ought to give us all serious concern. Technical assistance by Russia to underdeveloped countries, the sending of technical advisers, are all part of a pattern of which we see some striking and disturbing examples in the provision of arms to Egypt and in even the latest of these negotiations, that between Russia and Cambodia for the provision of economic aid to that country which is so close to the recent scenes of hostilities in Indo-China.
Sir, while we take some comfort from the fact that tension has eased, we would be very foolish indeed if we slackened our efforts or allowed ourselves to become less vigilant than we have been. I fully endorse the statement the minister made this morning, as I am sure all members will, that we must never resign ourselves to the prospect of mutual annihilation. We cannot simply be passive. The responsibility on the governments of all western nations today is to be active in promoting policies that will maintain the strength of the free world and at the same time demonstrate to that part of the world that is not free or is not as well off materially as we are the advantages that our way of life possesses, and our readiness to assist other nations who desire peacefully to enjoy that way of life.
I pass on to one other matter. It is a matter that I regard as of high importance. It is the recent conference of commonwealth prime ministers. A gathering of the prime ministers of the commonwealth countries is always desirable, always a good thing. Such meetings are almost invariably pleasant, and they establish or cement very useful contacts. They provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and for the pooling of important information. In a commonwealth where symbolism plays

Supply-External Affairs such a signal role these conferences also play their part in that symbolism as well as in other respects.
But, sir, if our hopes were for something more than the kind of fruits I have just described from the recent commonwealth prime ministers' conference, then I am afraid those hopes would have been doomed to disappointment. The communique which was issued at the close of the conference, and which the Prime Minister brought to the house on his return at the sitting of July 9, has been described elsewhere as "a collection of cliches", as a collection of mere platitudes. I am afraid that none of us can find in that communique anything more encouraging than that.
I would be the first to recognize the difficulties in the way of reaching agreements at such a meeting, when those attending the meetings and the lands they represent are so varied in their outlook and in their geographical locations throughout the world. But we should take a closer look at this particular conference and what we might have hoped to obtain from it. We are indebted to the Prime Minister of Australia, Right Hon. Mr. Menzies, for a frank statement in regard to this conference. At the press conference during his visit to Ottawa last week Mr. Menzies made some direct comments on this particular conference, and also on the way future conferences can be turned to better account than this one. The press report in the Globe and Mail of July 27 contains these statements:
A suggestion that future commonwealth prime ministers' conferences should limit their discussions to a single question or to a number of associated matters was made here today by Prime Minister Menzies of Australia.
Then there is this statement:
He doubted whether it was wise of the conference to issue a final communique attempting to summarize its discussions as has been the custom at all past meetings.
"People say the communique is a collection of cliches", Mr. Menzies remarked, "but in this world cliches are frequently the only things that all people agree on. You can always get unanimity on cliches.
"My view is that we attempt to cover too much ground in these conferences. Of course, it is very interesting to hear other people's views on a particular question. Then you can pass on to the next topic without having reached any conclusion on the previous one. I would like to see some conclusions reached. I would like to see some future conference limit itself to some single question or a group of questions, related questions, and see whether we couldn't produce a statement of commonwealth opinion.
"A statement of that kind should and could carry the moral authority that the commonwealth should possess. I think the world needs the force of judgment that the commonwealth has."
Later in the interview Mr. Menzies makes it plain that he does not favour any move

toward forming a unit of the commonwealth in actions and opinions, but he is drawing attention to the weight of moral judgment, the moral weight that the world would attach to statements that could be agreed upon at such conferences.
Having regard to the fact that Canada has a very senior position within the commonwealth, and that Canada is so situated as to be able to give a very valuable lead in commonwealth discussions, it seems to me, from the results, from what we know of Canada's contributions to the discussions and from the evasive statements we had from the Prime Minister in reply to questions in this chamber before he left to attend the conference, that the government has fallen far short of contributing to the success of the conference.
It is evident that there was little serious consideration given by the Canadian government to the conference. It is evident that the Canadian government had very little to contribute to the agenda of matters that came before the conference. It is evident that the Canadian government made little or no preparation for the conference. Apart from the pleasant associations which always mark such conferences, it seems to me that the Canadian government has shown much less concern about trying to make this conference really effective than it ought to have shown.
These conferences present opportunities. I am not thinking simply about political questions; I am thinking about economic questions as well. Such opportunities to deal with these important questions were offered to the conference, or could have been, and the opportunity the Canadian government had has apparently been thrown away. We have important trade interests with the commonwealth countries. We in this house should be displaying more concern about the commonwealth markets and the loss of those markets over the years, particularly for our agricultural surpluses.
But, Mr. Chairman, one has only to look at the record to see that the Canadian government was most uncommunicative with the house in relation to its preparations for the conference and what it sought to accomplish there. As reported at page 4889 of Hansard of June 11, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister to inform the house as to the agenda for the conference. The Prime Minister's answer was as follows:
The agenda has not been formally determined. There are items which have been suggested, and I think generally regarded by those who will attend as proper items for the agenda for that kind of meeting, involving principally considerations of the world situation. There are different

items relating to different areas of the world, and those are the items that have been suggested for consideration at the meeting.
The Leader of the Opposition came back to the subject again on June 20 and asked the Prime Minister if he would extend an invitation to the other commonwealth prime ministers meeting in London to attend a conference in Ottawa later this year to discuss trade and economic relationships within the commonwealth. The Prime Minister replied that there was apt to be such discussion at the conference but that no consideration had been given to the question of a special conference of commonwealth representatives to discuss economic problems, and he added:
It may be a question that will arise in the course of our discussions and if it does I shall be glad to report to the house when I return.
Notwithstanding Canada's important economic stake in commonwealth relations, it will be noticed that the Prime Minister was not prepared to say that he would raise the question. All he said was that if the question was raised at the conference, he would report to the house on his return. I might say that a further question was asked on this subject on June 22. When he did come back he said nothing about this particular subject in his report to the house. When the Prime Minister made his statement to the house on July 9 he said nothing about the calling of any economic conference, either in Ottawa or elsewhere, to discuss these important economic questions within the commonwealth in which Canada has so large a stake.
So the Prime Minister was asked, as hon. members will recall and as is reported at pages 5766 and 5767 of Hansard, as to whether he had put such a proposal before the conference, and the Prime Minister's reply was in the negative, that the subject of holding such a conference had not been introduced by the Canadian delegation at the conference. He also added:
. . . we did not think it was the appropriate time to introduce the subject at the conference.
Mr. Chairman, from the attitude displayed by the Prime Minister in this house, both before he went to the conference and after his return, it is quite evident that the Canadian government is little concerned with the commonwealth or whether that commonwealth accomplishes what it might in this troubled and upset world, with the full weight of its moral influence. It is evident also that the government attaches inadequate importance to Canada's economic stake within the commonwealth, to trade which I would have thought was of such lively importance to all Canadians.
Supply-External Affairs
The Canadian government could do much more in making such conferences effective. It could do so without fettering in any degree the sovereignty of this country. We say that this government has shown little concern for the commonwealth. It shows little concern about our trade relations with commonwealth countries. We say it is high time that the government appreciated the opportunities that are there. We say the government should not throw away such opportunities as those which were presented to it at this conference and which are still open to the government, to initiate the calling of a conference that will produce for Canada and other commonwealth countries, in our opinion, important trade and other economic advantages.


Mr. Stick:: May I ask the hon. member one question, Mr. Chairman? I waited until he had finished his speech. The hon. member for Eglinton raised the question of the sale of Sabre jets to Israel. May I ask him whether he and his party at this time favour the sale of Canadian Sabre jets to Israel?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Does the hon. member wish to reply?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, the subject has been up repeatedly. Statements have been made on this subject by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Prince Albert on behalf of this party. My hon. friend will find a very clear statement in this house by them on this subject.


An hon. Member:: What is your position?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. member has asked what is the position of the official opposition.
I am a member of the official opposition, and I have directed the hon. member to the place where he will find the statement of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Dickey:: Where?


Donald Methuen Fleming: It was made in this house a few days ago.


An hon. Member:: When?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The matter was mentioned a few days ago by the Leader of the Opposition.
I commend the statement to my hon. friend,


Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, the present resolution gives a good opportunity to discuss the evolution and the trends of our foreign policy. It is one of the few moments during the session when we can together examine our national thinking regarding our relations with other countries of the world. Most of the members in this house, however, seem to limit themselves to questions connected with either the United States of America, Europe or the Far East; some will look at

Supply-External Affairs the Middle East or Central Europe but very-few, if any, will be disposed to discuss our relations with the other important states which share with us the responsibility and pride of being the American nations. I think it is the proper time to pay special attention and give special care to the problems of our relations with the other American countries.
In order to be better informed on those problems I decided, last year, to go to Washington, the centre of the continental system itself, to the site of the inter-American organization which co-ordinates the efforts of the American states and promotes the idea of peace and friendship among the peoples of our hemisphere.
I am glad to mention that, even though it was understood that I had no official mission and that I was to be looked upon merely as a Canadian tourist visiting the beautiful capital city of our great neighbour to the south, some officials of the Pan-American union, the general secretariat of the organization of American states, had arranged for my friends and myself the most cordial welcome under very promising auspices. Although it was on a rainy Sunday, when the spacious buildings of the Pan-American union were closed, Dr. Luis Gardel, special assistant to the assistant secretary general, and Mr. Edward Davis of the division of conferences, took us on a special tour of the premises after we had *exchanged pleasant words over a delicious table.
Upon entering the large room called the hall of the Americas I had a strange feeling <of incompleteness, a sensation of false solidarity. It was incomplete and false because, quite evidently, in this salon des Ameriques, Canada was absent. Nevertheless when we and other tourists visit the older building of the Pan-American union, the guide usually calls attention to the coat of arms of Canada which, with those of the other American countries, adorns the exotic patio.
Our surprise was even greater when, amongst the other flags waving in the spring breeze, we saw the Canadian red ensign flying with pride and prestige amongst those of the other members of the Pan-American coffee bureau. The presence of these two symbolic emblems of our country made the absence of Canada all the more singular. We began also to wonder why Canada remained absent from such a large body as the organization of American states, when in fact it is a member of some of its specialized organizations. The problem still puzzles me because, after studying in detail the history and scope of the inter-American system, I am still wondering what motivates the absence of our great country from this regional organization.
[Mr. Villeneuve.l

There are two elements in that question, the inter-American system and Canada. What is the inter-American system? What is its importance in the world of today? What is its value for Canada? At the turn of the nineteenth century, when the winds of independence began to overthrow kingdoms and to tear the flags of the old colonial powers into pieces, the inter-American system was born. It was not meant to be a political doctrine and even less a weapon of domination in the hands of the American nation. On the contrary, the inter-American system was, and still is, an expression of the people's soul in search for freedom and peace under the sign of responsibility and grandeur.
In 1826 Simon Bolivar, the great liberator, called the first inter-American conference, the congress of Panama, which was followed by many others, the last one being the tenth inter-American conference held at Caracas in 1954. This long process of evolution in the relations between the American nations came to a logical and long-sought conclusion when in 1948 the charter of the organization of American states was adopted.
The charter of the organization of American states is not only a legal document binding together the nations of the new world, but it is and must be regarded as a monument erected to the victory of freedom over slavery. It represents the achievement of 150 years of struggle to ensure a climate of happiness, freedom and peace for the generations to come.
The principles of solidarity of the American nations, as conceived and expressed by the charter, are the following:
1.	International law and order and good faith shall govern the relation between states.
2.	An Act of aggression against one American state is an act of aggression against all other American states.
3.	Controversies arising between two or more American states shall be settled by peaceful procedures.
4.	Lasting peace and well-being and prosperity of the American peoples are based on political democracy.
In order to implement the basic principles of the organization of American states the following six bodies have been set up: The inter-American conference; the meeting for consultation by ministers of foreign affairs; the council; the Pan-American union; the specialized conferences; and the specialized organizations. Amongst the inter-American bodies which are connected with the organizations of American states there are some in which Canada has already shown a direct interest. By way of example, it might be recalled that the Pan-American institute of

geography and history and the permanent executive committee of the inter-American travel congress have reported the valuable contribution made by Canadian delegates and observers toward strengthening the bonds between the countries of our hemisphere. Our co-operation with the inter-American statistical institute has been so close that Ottawa was chosen as the site of its congress in 1954.
I should like to mention also the very important inter-American defence board organized in 1942. While Canada is not a member of this board, the permanent joint defence board formed by Canada and the United States would be the logical extension of the inter-American body on the North American continent. It is within the framework of the inter-American system that the inter-American treaty of reciprocal assistance was conceived and signed at Rio de Janeiro in 1947, the same treaty that later inspired the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is now the cornerstone of peace in the world. It must be remembered also that the inter-American system has received such a good appraisal it can now be divulged that the U.S.S.R. foreign affairs minister, during the Berlin conference of 1954, hinted that a similar pattern of organization should be adopted for the European states.
In view of all these facts one cannot avoid wondering how it has been possible for Canada to remain outside of this continental organization for so long. The question of Canadian participation in the inter-American system has often been discussed amongst Canadians, and even in this house. I wonder if it is not a good time to reexamine the matter now, three years after the tenth inter-American conference, at which the case of Canada was openly brought to the attention of the delegates by the secretary general of the organization, Dr. Alberto Lleras Camargo. He concluded his report with these words:
The day is surely not far off when another great state, Canada, the only one not yet a member of the organization but just as American as any other, will take its seat in our councils and share with us the mission that providence appears to have entrusted to man in the new world, to achieve an order of peace and justice.
In two more years the eleventh conference will be held at Quito, and it is very likely that again our absence will be more than noted. It seems to me that it would be proper to reassess our policy and reverse, if necessary, our line of conduct. Why, many people will ask, is not Canada more closely associated with the other American states? Others will bluntly put the question, why does not Canada join the organization of American states?
Supply-External Affairs
Both the late prime minister King and the present Prime Minister have expressed views on the participation of Canada in the interAmerican system. Back on August 4, 1944, the chief of the Canadian government mentioned that our country had never received an invitation to that body which was meant for republics only. Such an assertion has been clarified since by political writers and corrected by the use of the word "state" instead of "republics" or "nations" in the charter adopted in 1948. A few years later, on March 27, 1953, the present Prime Minister made a similar statement to the effect that-
So far it has not appeared to us that there would be any decided advantage in a formal membership in the Pan-American union.
It is evident that the attitude of the Canadians who oppose the participation of Canada in the organization of American states is based more or less on the same arguments that had been used by Mr. Vincent Massey and which are quoted even today, even though they have lost most, if not all, of their significance. I even have the impression that in the light of some documents which have been brought to my attention recently, it would not be quite accurate to say that the government of Canada, or at least one of its prime ministers, had not tried to bring our country into the Pan-American union at a certain time.
The objections which are ordinarily mentioned in connection with the participation of Canada in the inter-American system are, first, that the Pan-American union has always been an association for republics only. That objection can no longer be made because in 1948, during the debates of the Bogota conference, the delegates agreed to refer to the countries of the continent as American states in order to avoid the term "republic" and leave the door wide open for Canada to enter.
The second objection has been for a long time that Canada, being a part of the British commonwealth of nations, could not join another organization. Recent history has fully demonstrated the falseness of such an argument, because the idea of joining the United Nations and NATO was sold to the Canadian public without any reference being made to our association with the British commonwealth. The same thing could be repeated regarding the organization of American states.
A third objection is that Canada has not been invited to join the continental organization. Who will believe that if and when Canada expresses a desire to join any international body, there will be objection to it? It is well known that a nation can always hint that she wishes to be invited. On the

Supply-External Affairs other hand, we know from different sources that the participation of Canada would be welcome, and the recent unanimous decision taken by the council of the organization of American states to invite Canada to the travel congress in April is an eloquent proof of the good will expressed by the organization of American states.
For the record, it must be recalled that many times in the past our country has shown a direct interest in some organizations and conferences of the inter-American system. To mention just a few; the first Pan-American medical congress in Washington, 1893; the Pan-American road congress, Oakland, California, 1915; the first international congress of history of America, Rio de Janeiro, 1922; the fourth Pan-American congress of architects, Rio de Janeiro, 1930; the postal congress of the Americas and Spain, Panama, 1936; the eleventh Pan-America sanitary conference, Rio de Janeiro, 1942; the inter-American conference on social security, Santiago, Chile, 1942; the second inter-American statistical congress, Bogota, January, 1950; the fifth general assembly of the Pan-American institute of geography and history, Santiago, Chile, October, 1950; the fourth inter-American conference on agriculture, Montevideo, December, 1950; the fourth inter-American travel congress, Lima, April, 1952; the third Pan-American consultation on geography, Washington, July and August, 1952.
More recently, Canada sent its ambassador to Brazil as an official delegate to the economic conference held in Rio de Janeiro in 1954, and we all know that just last spring a cordial invitation was sent to our country to attend two important conferences in Costa Rica, namely, the sixth inter-American travel congress and the inter-American port harbour conference.
I should like to mention also that only recently an exhibition of Canadian artists was held in the patio of the Pan-American union building by a group called Le Retable, of Joliette, Quebec. According to people who actually saw the exhibition it was one of the finest ever held under the auspices of that continental organization, and it brought only praise and admiration for our artists and our country. If private individuals can sponsor and organize such demonstrations of good will and international friendship, there is no knowing how effective official co-operation would be.
At this stage it might be proper to recall that during his visit to Ottawa the vicepresident of Brazil himself expressed the wish of Brazil to see Canada join the organization of American states. Last week, during the Panama conference, with all the American

chiefs of state present, President Eisenhower invited all the American states to act in concert within the framework of the organization of American states to advance the welfare and happiness of their citizens. Last week also the Canadian under-secretary of state for external affairs declared during a televised interview that there was no obstacle to the participation of Canada in the organization of American states, and that such a decision rested with the government of Canada alone.
You have probably read also the report of the press conference given by Ambassador Jose Mora on the day this Uruguayan diplomat assumed his new post as secretary general of the organization of American states. On that occasion this well known internationalist said that Canada would always be welcome to the organization of American states, that this continental body is made for all the American states, and that Canada has taken part in inter-American meetings and is still invited to do so. This statement from the highest official of the organization of American states should leave no doubt in our minds about his attitude toward our country.
I have the impression the time has come for a reappraisal of our attitude toward the organization of American states. There are excellent motives supporting the close cooperation of Canada with the continental organization, and I would even go so far as to suggest a full membership in the organization of American states, for the following reasons.
First, there is not the shadow of a doubt that our economic relations would be improved and that our trade with the rest of the continent would be increased if we were using the services and the facilities put at the disposal of its members by the interAmerican economic and social council.
Second, the cultural bonds between the Canadian nation and the other peoples of the Americas can only be made better through the good offices of the inter-American cultural council. And when one considers that the real values of our civilization are those that rest upon spiritual and cultural bases we see in the cultural interrelation the best solution to many of the problems affecting the international situation.
Third, there are military reasons which alone would be sufficient to eliminate the strongest opposition because, as we said before, no efforts should be spared to strengthen peace on our continent so we can present this hemisphere as an example to the old world. The participation of Canada in the inter-American defence board would be a significant step in that direction.

Fourth, as far as political reasons are concerned, who would oppose any means of assuring political unity among the nations of the new world? The organization of American states has proved its usefulness in preventing conflicts, and its importance for 21 of the 22 countries of our hemisphere should be a guarantee to Canada of a more responsible role on this continent.
The organization of American states has an outstanding record of peaceful and useful years. By joining the organization of American states Canada would complete the continental unity with the framework of the United Nations, article 51 of whose charter recommends whenever possible the setting up of regional organizations.
We belong already to the United Nations, which covers all the world; we share the responsibilities of the Atlantic nations to NATO; why not at last occupy the vacant chair which has been reserved for Canada ever since the beginning of the interAmerican system? The role of Canada in world affairs will be great in the years to come. We know that all over the world present conditions have made it necessary for all the nations to assume their responsibilities and to face the future with hope and confidence. There is no doubt that through adherence to the organization of American states Canada would not only complete the continental solidarity but would at last contribute to the American community of nations her prestige, her experience, her objective approach to world affairs, and in so doing we would enlarge our own horizons in the international field and increase our influence among the other nations of the world.
(Translation):


Mr. Gagnon:: Mr. Chairman, recognition of the present Peking regime still being under consideration by the government, I would like to express my constituents' views on this matter before this possibility becomes a fact. This would of course be a new if not unforeseen development in our international policy. Anything can happen.
We are living in a fool's paradise where there is talk only of war, military preparation, disintegration of the atom and hydrogen bombs.
There is nothing surprising in all this since, left to itself, humanity is rushing to its doom. God, the only guide capable of enlightening and directing the world has been expelled from the United Nations. No one is willing to admit that human beings have been created in His image and resemblance. When a declaration of human rights was adopted by that august assembly, it was moved by the
Supply-External Affairs U.S.S.R., seconded by Great Britain, China and India that His name be removed from section one so as not to hurt the feelings of atheists and unbelievers.
And today, we are thinking of extending the hand of friendship to those who yesterday were butchering our countrymen and who tomorrow will be attempting to bring us under their yoke.
Fear has become the prime mover of our actions and of our alliances, and our politicians are ready to associate with revolutionaries, conspirators, anarchists, with the devil himself if need be, in order to ensure a moment's breathing spell, to enjoy illusory diplomatic victories. Resistance seems akin to treason.
Because of the ignorance, weakness and tolerance of our leaders and of the absence of a firm and clearly defined policy, the prophecies of Lenin will come to pass, possibly sooner than we may imagine. He said:
First, we will conquer eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia, so as to encircle the United States, last stronghold of capitalism. We will not have to resort to war; that country will fall into our hands like an overripe fruit.
We are lead and pushed along by other countries along paths chosen according to the tastes, ideas and interests of their leaders. Though we may think we are playing an important part in the government of nations we are, in fact, mere puppets manipulated by others for their own purposes.
(Text):
In the issue of April 2, 1954, of the U.S. News and World Report magazine, it is stated:
Lester Pearson, representative of the United Nations is to act as "swing man" in a manoeuvre to get communist China an U.N. membership. The play is to vote the Chinese communists a membership in the U.N. assembly where a veto apparently cannot keep them out. The U.N. security council where nationalist China would retain a membership no longer amounts to much because of Russia's use of the veto . . .
Drums are beating to pay more ransom to aggressors, to invite a bunch of bandits into polite society in the hope of reforming them. Hearts are bleeding among diplomats all around the world for the poor communist Chinese, who are shooting up the neighbourhood. No hearts, however, seem to be bleeding for the Italians, or Germans, or Japanese, or Spaniards who also sit on the outside of world councils, even when stable and peaceful and friendly.
(Translation):
I know, Mr. Chairman, that Spain and Italy became members of the United Nations on December 14, 1955, but nonetheless the report that I just quoted remains significant.
Oddly enough, it was also our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) who, at the United Nations, moved the par-

Supply-External Affairs tition of Palestine and the creation of the state of Israel.
Have we thus become the tool of communists and of international jewry, as was written in England?
I say that we will be misled, duped and deceived by the Chinese communists if ever they become our partners because, no matter what our pundits say, we have not the same cards in our hands, we do not understand anything about their way of thinking; their stubbornness and their skill put us off balance and we will also be ridiculed and scoffed at by the Russians because they are more knavish and double-dealing than we are.
In war as in peace, they will remain fundamentally our enemies. Everywhere we will find them in the opposite camp. An example of it is to be found in what happened in the disastrous Korean expedition.
The December 1950 issue of the official bulletin of the Department of External Affairs reported the following, on page 474 of the French edition:
Chinese Communists Intervene In the first week of November, at least three divisions of Chinese Communist troops moved across the Yalu river, together with heavy supplies of arms, equipment and some air support to bolster the shattered remnants of North Korean forces. The Chinese Communists and North Koreans launched a fierce counter-attack which obliged the United Nations command to withdraw from 50 to 100 miles to protect exposed flanks and supply routes.
In a special communique of November 6, General MacArthur, without identifying the new forces as Chinese, branded this move as "one of the most offensive acts of international lawlessness of historical records". He pointed out that this "new and fresh army" was "backed up by a possibility of large alien reserves . . . Whether and to what extent these reserves will be moved forward to reinforce units now committed remains to be seen and is a matter of the gravest international significance". General MacArthur referred here to an estimated three hundred thousand trained Chinese troops which were reported massed in Manchuria.
Today, one thing is evident: while our soldiers were being killed in Korea, our statesmen were working behind the scenes for the admission of the aggressor among the United Nations council.
Our Secretary of State for External Affairs is an internationalist whose ambition is to unify the North Atlantic community not only from the military standpoint but also from the political, economic, racial and cultural standpoints.
NATO is much more important to Canada than the United Nations and our government is willing to sacrifice on its altars our national sovereignty in exchange for a so-called supernational sovereignty. On the other hand, Russia is opposed and is striving to destroy,

if possible, the North Atlantic pact. It would be foolish to believe that China will burn incense before our idols and go against the wishes of its Moscow ally.
The statements of our Prime Minister at Manila and Seoul on his world tour gave rise at the time to strong protests, and I do not believe that public opinion has changed much since.
According to a Canadian Press despatch dated March 10, 1954, a South Korean newspaper expressed the opinion that Prime Minister St. Laurent is one of those who are "becoming the instruments and dupes" of communists.
The Daily Korean Republic took Mr. St. Laurent to task because he stated at Seoul that in his opinion the allies should be realists and recognize communist China.
According to the Canadian Prime Minister, it would be realistic to accept murder, sickness and banditry simply because those evils are with us . . .
states that newspaper. And it adds:
The St. Laurents in our midst are actually playing the game of communists when they unconsciously preach a policy of appeasement.
That semi-official newspaper adds:
The Prime Minister is guilty of the same terrible mistake of communist inspiration when he asserts that the Chinese people accept their communist masters.
It is strangely presumptuous on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) to state that the Chinese people wish to be administered, governed, exploited and persecuted by the present communist regime.
On March 20, 1954, The Ensign carried the following item on page 3:
(Text):
In a declaration issued by Rev. Louis Bouchard, S.J., of the Jesuit Chinese Mission, and co-signed by His Excellency Philippe Cote, S.J., Bishop of Suchow, Msgr. Edgar Larochelle, Superior of Foreign Missions, Rev. Frangois Prudhomme, Clercs of St. Viateur, "stupefaction" was expressed at press dispatches purporting to imply that Canada is considering diplomatic recognition of the red regime over China.
The declaration of the Rt. Hon. Louis St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada, regarding the opportuneness of diplomatic recognition of red China has caused stupefaction.
Mr. St. Laurent could not have said what was reported. He has too much esteem for the people of his own province and too much dignity to join his voice to those who act in a way which would make Catholic Canada blush for generations.
It is to calumny the people of China to say that they desire the communist government. This has been proved by the prisoners at Panmunjom who have abandoned all, country, family and home and have proclaimed to all the world, even to the materialist world, which understands little of the sacrifices involved, that the real China does not desire communist rule.

As a matter of fact, 90 per cent of the Chinese prisoners in Korea chose to go to Formosa rather than return to their communist-controlled mainland home.
For many years missionaries have watched communism making inroads in China, due to the complicity of lies which prepared western betrayal. One heard then that the Chinese communists were not like other communists. False hopes were spread that there would be a break with Moscow, which has never occurred. All has been sacrificed to prepare for the ascendancy of a red tyranny in China. That the missionaries know.
The missionaries were not listened to when they proclaimed to all the world through their sufferings, their devotions, their years in prison, that China does not want a communist government, that the Chinese abhor red tyranny . . .
This those who calumny the Chinese people know, and this the Rt. Hon. Mr. St. Laurent cannot be ignorant of.
The missionaries could say much more about trade with communist China and the shame that is involved. But today they only want to testify of their own deep sorrow and the suffering of the Chinese people, crushed, imprisoned and herded into concentration camps.
The missionaries want to stress the deep pain of the abandoned people when they will learn that the west has sided against them and with their executioners. The missionaries must make this declaration in conscience before the Chinese people, namely, that they cannot be a party to the people's betrayal.
(Translation):
Mgr. Philippe Cote, a Jesuit who lived in China for 25 years, who was kept prisoner for 20 months by the Chinese communists, whose testimony is certainly worth that of a tourist who flew over the clouds of Asia or visited only a couple of cities, stated in a lecture given in Quebec two years ago that, of more than 500 million Chinese, hardly two million were genuine communists.
That means that the great mass of the population are under Red dictatorship.
On the 23 of the same month, the Montreal Gazette reported under the title:
(Text):
Atom bomb death preferred to reds, missionary claims. Rev. Alphonse Caouette of the foreign missions society returning here after 17 years Roman Catholic missionary work in China, said last week-end many Chinese would prefer even the foreign yoke of Japan to the present communist "slave state".
"There are many who go so far as looking to the atom bomb as the only remedy for all the present ills, even if it should mean their deaths", Father Caouette said.
"These people are profoundly conservative and justly proud of their past. Those who believe that one may snatch from a people its beliefs, its philosophy, its habits of thousands of years to give them a Utopia are making a big mistake. The Marxist giant has overthrown the traditions and the liberties which were dearest to the people, most of whom live under a reign of terror and nervous tension harder to bear than death. Suicide has become an everyday affair. Prisons and political lives have the biggest roles in China today.
Supply-External Affairs
During the past years, Mr. Chairman, Chinese in Canada who have relatives in China have been blackmailed by the reds for large sums of money, with their relatives held as hostages. Likewise, our missionaries in China have been tortured, jailed and thrown out by the red regime. And in Korea the Chinese reds have slaughtered tens of thousands of Canadian, British, American and other U.N. boys. Now, before the blood is dry on their hands, the reds are directing further aggression and bloodshed in southeast Asia. As a reward for this savagery and butchery, our statesmen lend their voices and extend their hands not to the poor and persecuted but to the oppressor. To me it is significant that the group which is pressing for recognition of red China in this house is once again the socialists.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North again this afternoon asked for recognition of red China. On January 17 the hon. member for Mackenzie pressed the matter, as will be found at page 183 of Hansard. Despite the fact that the members of the C.C.F. party profess antagonism to the communists, I note that repeatedly they are making proposals which could only be helpful to communist nations. Let not our generation be accused before history of making friends with the torturers and butchers, while abandoning the oppressed to their fate. Let us be realistic.
It was not until the United States officially recognized and granted diplomatic privileges to the Kremlin in 1933 that the reds were able to open up an embassy in Washington and consulate offices across the United States, which were then used to organize and direct espionage against the United States, just as Igor Gouzenko revealed the reds were doing in Canada. Did this recognition benefit America? Not a bit. But it did lend prestige to the reds; it did discourage and dishearten the oppressed multitudes and advance the opportunities and facilities for communist espionage inside America.
Recognition of red China today by Canada would allow this red regime to open an embassy in Ottawa and consulate offices across Canada, which could then be used to coerce and intimidate loyal Chinese in Canada and to organize Chinese red fifth columns inside our borders. Let us ever remember that agreements with communists are not worth the paper they are written on. They are binding only upon us; they tie only our hands.
Communist teachings leave no doubt that communist leaders do not believe that communist and non-communist countries can exist side by side; one or the other must
6818	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs conquer. These teachings also make it clear that any agreements made by communists, or the apparent withdrawal from any position they have taken up, are regarded as tactics necessary for ultimately furthering the general communist offensive.
Once the west faces the fact that it is engaged in war, it surely becomes obvious that its first offensive move should be to refuse to continue to give the communists a false status by recognizing them as the genuine representatives of the Russian and other peoples. The immediate breaking of all diplomatic relations with the communist governments would be a major psychological victory for the west, particularly if it used every avenue to tell the peoples of communist-dominated countries why this step had been taken.
The Soviet union and the people's republic of China maintain extensive economic relations in all spheres of the economy. The U.S.S.R. supplies China with equipment for iron and steel, mining, engineering, chemical and other industries, as well as farm machinery and other equipment and materials. China, in her turn, ships to the U.S.S.R. great amounts of various manufactured goods and agricultural products. There has been a marked increase in the Soviet union's share of Chinese foreign trade. It has grown from 23-3 per cent in 1950 to 41-6 per cent last year.
An agreement on scientific and technical co-operation between the U.S.S.R. and the Chinese people's republic was signed in 1954, in accordance with which the two countries have undertaken to exchange technical documents and pertinent information, to send experts to render technical assistance, and to study the scientific and technical achievements of the two countries. This agreement was a new, important contribution to the cause of strengthening economic and cultural relations between the U.S.S.R. and China.
(Translation):
Here then are two fellow travellers professing the same political ideology, furthering the same ideal, united and associated in peace as well as in war and determined not to lose face before the rest of the world.
Let us be cautious and, before we recognize red China, let us ask ourselves if many Asiatic countries are prepared to believe that the western world is serious in its struggle against communism and would not barter its great, inspiring and noble principles of justice, freedom and the given word when powerful material interests are at stake.
It must be realized that the U.S.S.R. has never considered international conferences


and negotiations,-whether it is an international conference of the Red Cross or the negotiations such as those which took place at Berlin and Geneva,-as a means to settle international problems but rather as hustings for propaganda or as a psychological weapon. Up to now, through a technique of repetition and a rhetoric of sabotage, the U.S.S.R. has exhausted its opponents in the diplomatic game, not because they were the weakest but because they were the more civilized and the more sincere, and after all, were genuinely in quest of peace. With communism, it is fatal to believe that there might be community of ideal or identity of means. They do not even speak the same language.
By its technique of repetition, the U.S.S.R. has succeeded in worrying us with the question of the recognition of red China.
To be a realist is to understand that, in giving recognition to red China, we accept the verdict of violence in Asia. To be a realist is to understand that the recognition of red China would give the U.S.S.R. its greatest diplomatic victory since Yalta, that it could even be the Yalta of the East. Finally, to be a realist, is to realize that the recognition of the U.S.S.R., some time ago, has done nothing for the peace of the world and that tomorrow, the recognition of red China will not likely bring anything more.
If, in the interest of our commerce, we must gain the sympathy, the esteem and the friendship of the Chinese usurpers, our Secretary of State for External Affairs could suggest to Great Britain to offer Hong Kong to Mao Tse-tung. To foster relations with communists, to speak of a communist regime with the same indifference as one speaks of any other political system, shows a truly astounding lack of realism.
We must show the same love for the American and for the Chinese, for the British citizen as for the Soviet . . .
Writes Dr. Endicott, high priest of the Canadian reds. As for me, I say with Meany, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O.:
Don't go soft on communism.
To look for the good points of the communist regime has unfortunately become the obsession of some of our leftist intellectuals and some of our public officials. Associations have even been created to promote friendship between Canada and Russia. On the other hand, the attitude of the government towards the defenders of the individual, of law and of Christianity is incomprehensible and equivocal.
We loathe the past and present methods of the Franco regime.

That statement was made by Canada's representatives at the political and security committee of the general assembly of the United Nations.
Such is the profession of faith of the government towards one of the nations of the world whose sons fought and died to prevent communism from taking root in their country.
We must not send an ambassador to the Vatican, because that could give a cerebral hemorrhage to sectarian Orangemen of our country, but let us send a representative to Mao Tse-tung, that beloved child of Bulganin and of the socialists, if circumstances are favourable.
It is a queer policy that would have us become friends and partners of our past and future aggressors, of enemies of peace, order and the maintenance of the economic system under which we live.
We should not become the allies of those who wish to hold sway over us, and would like us to become propagandists and unconscious supporters of a doctrine which is contrary to our mentality, our ideal and our creed.
Our drafters of treaties are no longer satisfied with coexistence; they want cohabitation.
I say that a Christian and Catholic nation like ours cannot honestly live under the same roof as communist China and red Russia. One must not flirt with death.
(Text):


Mr. Hunter:: Mr. Chairman, may I first of all congratulate the minister on a very fine introductory speech on the opening of his estimates. It was presented with thoughtfulness and clarity which made it a pleasure indeed to hear. I enter into this debate with the diffidence with which I always enter into a discussion of external affairs, because it always seems to me to be rather a specialist's task. However, we all have views on certain subjects, and perhaps I may be forgiven for presenting mine.
I am sure we are all impressed in the world today with the enormous cost of armaments; yet that cost is almost entirely due to one country, namely Russia. If it were not for the policies of Russia we could reduce our armaments and turn that money to useful purposes. Russia has been a dictatorship for so long now and her ambitions have been so apparent for so long that we take for granted this enormous expense and this cold warfare which has been going on for many years.
I suppose Russia could be considered the greatest dictatorship in the history of the world. Not only is it the greatest dictatorship but it is the most efficient, the most ruthless
Supply-External Affairs and the most immoral one. There are people who tend to regard Russia as a homogeneous state. As any student of history realizes, Russia is not a homogeneous state but is composed of a large number of states, many of which were taken by conquest or by craft and have been kept under dictatorship in some cases for centuries. I refer particularly to the Ukraine.
The Ukraine, which has been integrated by the Russian government into Russia, was always a separate state at heart, with separate customs, separate language and separate religion. There is a tendency on the part of the Russian government to try to give the impression-and many people believe it- that the Ukraine is an integral part of Russia and wishes to be an integral part of Russia. I merely wish to point out that the Ukraine never wished to be part of Russia, does not wish to be part of Russia, and would give anything on earth to be free of the Russian yoke.
I would also refer to one of the most immoral things that has happened in history, namely the seizure of Poland by the Russian army. It was definitely part of the agreement among the allies that all countries occupied by the allies would be given back their responsible government and freedom as soon as hostilities ceased. The act of treachery by which the Russians walked into Poland and have occupied it, despite its separate government, has been one of the most barefaced pieces of skulduggery that has been performed in our time.
I think what has happened recently in Poland would indicate how anxious the people are to be free of the oppressor. That has been a terrible thing. It was unfortunate in its results. It is the type of thing that reassures people that decency is not dead in countries where they have dictatorships and where they are kept down, but that people still have freedom in their hearts and that, given any type of opportunity, they will express themselves.
It is difficult to see where the possibility of freedom lies in these countries. First of all, the Ukraine has been integrated economically into Russia for so long that it is difficult to see how the people will ever attain their freedom. It is difficult to see how they can get rid of the government in Poland which is obviously supported not by the people of Poland but by the armies of Russia. However, I am convinced of one thing, and history tells us this. Evil cannot endure forever. Eventually something happens. People are intrinsically decent and they do not intend in the long run, to permit the endurance of an evil thing.
6820	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs
I also say this, and I think I speak for everyone in this house. The people of Canada will never, under any circumstances, condone these tyrannies and, given any opportunity to see that they are abolished, they will certainly take that opportunity.


Mr. Lusby:: Mr. Chairman, the remarks I wish to make are based on a growing conviction that if there is to be any real and enduring peace between the communist and the non-communist blocs, a key factor will have to be the Russian people themselves, as distinct from the government. During the past year we have seen an apparent subsidence of the open tensions between the Soviet union and the west, and of the immediate danger of a major armed conflict. This development, however, has not been accompanied by any lessening in the delicacy and complexity of international problems with which we must cope. On the contrary, I think it can truly be said that never before have those problems been more complicated, more thorny and more baffling than they are today. Never before has it proved more difficult to assess and evaluate them with accuracy, and to decide upon a wise course of action to adopt in relation to them.
Such a situation, Mr. Chairman, lends increasing importance to the role of the Department of External Affairs in the multitudinous functions of our government, and in such times all Canadians may congratulate themselves-and I am sure all thinking Canadians do so-upon the fact that we have at the head of that department, guiding its policies and its administration with a far-seeing eye and strong, experienced hand, such an outstanding statesman as the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Of him it is no exaggeration to say that his reputation has become world-wide. The neutral nations trust him as they do few other western leaders, and even the communist bloc pays him the tribute of a real, if somewhat grudging, respect. But it is of course in his own country and among our allied democracies that his talents are most widely esteemed and put to effective use. Evidence of this is his appointment by the North Atlantic Council as one of the special committee of three constituted to advise on ways and means of fostering NATO co-operation in non-military fields and developing greater unity within the Atlantic group of nations. In that capacity the minister will have need to exercise all his exceptional abilities to the full. This committee came into being, as I understand it, largely as a result of the emergence on the international scene of one of the most intricate and perplexing problems ever to trouble the dreams 

of western statesmen; that is, the far-reaching shift by the U.S.S.R. in the strategy and tactics of its continuing, unrelenting campaign to destroy us.
This shift did not begin within the past year. It probably had its inception soon after the communists realized their inability to achieve their aims in Korea. I do not agree with those who say the shift was completed within the past year, but I think it could be said it was in 1955 that it became clearly patent. Against the former merely military threat, in what now in some respects might almost be called the good old days, our policy was relatively simple, consisting primarily of maintaining our armed strength at an adequate level to discourage or repel attack by any hostile force or forces. It is evident that, as has been said on several occasions this afternoon, for all the apparent lessening of tension on the grand scale, for all the Soviet disclaimers of warlike purpose, for all the conferences on disarmament, we must still base our policies on the premise that the Russian professions of peaceful intent are not to be taken at face value. The military threat still exists and could again at any time become overt. We must, therefore, keep up our guard.
But apart from that, we are now faced with a change in Russian aggressive tactics. Make no mistake; they are still fully aggressive. Now, behind an assumed front of democracy and good will, the U.S.S.R. schemes to weaken and destroy us by economic competition. First, taking in a sense a leaf from our own book, it will strive to outdo us in the matter of economic assistance, promised or actual, to the undeveloped countries of the earth. Coupled with political machinations, subtle or not so subtle, in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and every other area where the prospect of fomenting unrest and even open conflict seems most promising, the Soviet plan, unless it can be effectively checkmated, poses a real and pressing danger that many countries friendly to the west, or at least neutral, may be imperceptibly wooed away from us, perhaps even directly into the hostile camp.
I think the process has already shown its sinister possibilities. In fact I believe the present ominous situation at Suez is very much in point. By the sale of arms to Egypt, coupled with what amounted to little more than a vague indication of willingness to extend economic aid to that country, the communist bloc has been instrumental in touching off a chain of events now involving the west in an imbroglio of the first magnitude.
But in the long perspective I think there is an even more alarming threat inherent in the Soviet shift in strategy. The U.S.S.R. is,

I am convinced, bent upon a long-range course of cutthroat economic competition designed to cripple and destroy the western democracies by ruining the vast export trade on which so much of the strength, stability and prosperity of those democracies depends. As yet this danger is perhaps little more than incipient, a cloud looming upon the far horizon. The U.S.S.R. is not today among the foremost competitors in international commerce, at least not beyond the iron curtain. But if the Russians come even close to their announced goals of industrial development- and they boast that within seven years they will equal the United States in industrial output-then in a comparatively brief space of time they will be in a formidable competitive position, not only to outvie the west in economic aid to backward countries-as to which their contributions so far have been more promises than performance-but even to cut deeply, ruinously, into the export markets of the democracies throughout the world.
We can no longer comfort ourselves with the delusion which not so long ago was widely and naively held, that the Russian is a backward type with slight mechanical aptitude, congenitally unfitted to attain the technical, scientific and engineering skills and efficiency of the west. Now we view with a great deal of alarm the output, both in quality and quantity, of Soviet technicians, engineers and scientists. We admit, as we must, that the years since the last war have seen astounding strides in Russia's industrial development; that the gap between her attained standards of efficiency of industrial production and those of the west has narrowed greatly, and in all probability will continue to close. Such a situation leaves us no room for complacency on our part. If Russia once attains a near equality of industrial efficiency, coupled with its vast natural resources, the Soviet union will enjoy an immense advantage over us in competing for the markets of the world, provided that it continues to possess, as it now does, an almost limitless reservoir of cheap labour.
We in the west are committed, and rightly so, to the principle that the worker is worthy of his hire and is entitled to a full, fair share of that which he produces. Our whole economic structure, with its prevailing high standards of living, has that as one of its foundation stones. Our goal, toward which we have advanced far, is prosperity for all and not for a mere favoured few. By contrast, the Russian working force remains very much a pawn in the grandiose plan of world domination which still animates the hierarchy in Moscow. The sacrifices of the people have provided and will, according to
Supply-External Affairs that plan, continue to provide to whatever extent may be necessary the capital for Russia's development and expansion, both industrially and militarily, and for the steps she is now taking to implement that plan on the economic front. The cheap labour of her toiling millions could prove a decisive weapon in the projected war of markets.
It is my belief, Mr. Chairman, that if the undoubtedly dynamic powers of the Russian industrial economy, existing and potential, were directed to their only really legitimate objective, the material advancement of the Russian people themselves, rather than toward the ends of that obsession of world mastery which the men in the Kremlin show no concrete evidence of abandoning, we should have comparatively little to fear economically from the U.S.S.R. for generations, if ever.
The full economic development of the vast land mass of Russia, coupled with the raising of the standards of living of her people to a level at least in some degree comparable with that generally obtaining in the more prosperous countries of the west, and the supplying of the almost limitless internal demand for goods and services thereby created, would absorb the industrial energies of the Soviet union for the next half century or more. The normal expansion of its foreign trade which might be expected to accompany this development, based on accepted economic principles, and based perhaps on expanding mutually profitable business contacts with the west, would offer no such threat to us as does the open, ruthless, cutthroat commercial warfare which Moscow seems to have presently in mind.
A prospering people is not a war-minded people. With a rapid and steady improvement in their standard of living, the Russian people would, in my opinion, grow increasingly averse to any aggressive policies or actions of their masters toward the outer world. The U.S.S.R. might well become eventually even an influence for peace and stability, its present subversive role forgotten. That, of course, is indeed looking far ahead.
It is undoubtedly true, as I have mentioned, that the Soviet union has made substantial advances in industrial and economic development. It is equally true that there has already been a real betterment in the over-all living standards of its people. The men in the Kremlin, as a matter of self-interest, have been shrewd enough to see to that, and certainly there are few signs of any serious threat in the U.S.S.R. today, whatever the situation may be in the satellite states, where obviously different considerations apply. I might say here that I am mindful of what

Supply-External Affairs was said by the hon. member for Parkdale with regard to the Ukraine, and I fully agree with all that he said. None the less, I do not think, looking over the whole extent of the U.S.S.R., it can be said that there is any unrest in that country today seriously threatening its existing system of government. It may well be that many of the Russian proletariat, having in mind the poverty of the past, count themselves among the favoured of the earth. Yet such an attitude must be based largely, I suggest, upon the ignorance of the Russian people with regard to the material achievements of the west. They do not know how far they still lag behind their western counterparts in material well-being. They do not realize that a concentration of the immense potential capacities of their country upon domestic problems, upon internal improvement and development, and upon their own advancement, could speed to them, the people, within their lifetime, benefits of which they have yet hardly dreamed. Conversely, they do not realize that the diversion of much of those capacities toward conflict, economic or otherwise, with the west must largely postpone such benefits for decades, even if it does not involve all mankind in irretrievable ruin.
If one could bring home those considerations to the Russian people and dispel the fear so skilfully fostered in them that the west harbours hostile designs against them-[DOT] and certainly that fear must be dispelled if the shadow of war is to be permanently banished from the earth-I believe that the wish for peace and for the abandonment of all forms of external aggression in favour of the internal development of their own country for their own good would become so compelling a force, even upon the iron totalitarianism of the Kremlin, that their masters would hardly dare do otherwise than lead them in the direction they wish to take. After all, the great majority of the Russian people is not numbered in the fanatic communist party; and though they may be, as I say, reasonably content with their form of government, having known none better, they do share the common longing of common folk for peace and plenty. Deep, too, within them must lie the unquenchable human instinct for freedom.
That it would be highly desirable to bring about a closer understanding between the Russian people and those of the west is certainly no novel idea. Hitherto, however, by means of the iron curtain, the men of the Kremlin have succeeded admirably-perhaps "notably" is a better word-in insulating the Russian masses from knowledge of the west, and exposing them only to such evil propaganda as they would have them hear.

It seems to me, however, that the present shift in communist strategy from military pressure to economic warfare gives rise to two conclusions, or rather gives rise to a conclusion and presents an opportunity.
First, in view of what I have said, it emphasizes and renders more urgent, as a means of defeating that strategy, the desirability and importance, which has long been given background recognition, of the spreading throughout Russia of a better knowledge and understanding of the west, both of our pacific intentions and of the material progress and well-being of our peoples. Our achievements in the latter respect, though neither complete nor perfect, would come, I suggest, as a revelation to the Russian masses, as would the degree of freedom possessed by the individual under our present system of government.
Second, the new Moscow strategy, as I see it, unavoidably offers to the west an opening for the propagation of such knowledge and understanding. In this regard, we can do comparatively little by way of direct action against Soviet restrictions. I question that radio broadcasts and the like, though they no doubt have their place, impinge greatly upon the consciousness of the Russian populace. But the current Kremlin policy of economic warfare, now concentrated on the wooing of the uncommitted nations by promises, implemented or not, of material aid, later to take the form of a campaign to capture the export markets of the west, involves first of all the securing of the political confidence of those countries with which closer business and other ties are sought. The lamb does not play, or trade, with the obvious wolf. Therefore the wolf must assume sheep's clothing which, in this case, is the trappings of liberty and democracy.
There has been much speculation as to the reasons underlying the uprooting of Stalinism in the U.S.S.R., with all its easily foreseeable risks of shaking the confidence of the Russian people in the present regime. To my mind, at least one cogent reason is not far to seek. The shift of the campaign against the west from the military to the political and economic fields required that the U.S.S.R. pose as a true democracy before those states it seeks to beguile into closer commercial and political association.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


The Chairman:: Has the hon. member leave to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.


Azel Randolph Lusby: Now, certainly no avowed apostle of Stalin could be mistaken, even by

the most gullible, for a democrat. Therefore the cult of the dead dictator must be, to all seeming, eradicated root and branch and his former followers and sycophants must essay the hazardous expedient of recanting their errors without fatally jeopardizing their posts of power and their hold upon the confidence of the Russian people and of communist cells abroad.
To this exacting task they have applied all their usual diabolical cunning, but it has necessarily led to a considerable-and no doubt reluctant-relaxation of restrictions at home, as well as to sweeping alterations in the face they present to the outer world. There are many signs that the Russian people are being accorded a somewhat wider, if still pitiably slight, freedom of travel, of discussion, even perhaps of criticism. The power of the secret police is less in evidence. Visits of foreigners, not only those in official positions, such as our Minister of Fisheries, but even of tourists, to Russia are becoming commonplace, as are those of groups, carefully selected, of course, of Russian citizens abroad.
All this, mark you, implies no effective undermining of that castle of absolute autocracy wherein Khruschchev, the implacable, still sits enthroned, though latterly with as little ostentation as possible. But in maintaining even such a semblance of democratic ways it seems to me the government of the U.S.S.R. lays itself open to various pressures from the west which it can withstand only at the price of revealing the falsity of its pretenses.
The present trend-which of course may be reversed at any time and is at best unstable, as Khrushchev's occasionally verbal outburst against the west indicates-is for the Kremlin to profess a love of freedom and peace, an eagerness for friendly relations, trade and co-operation with all the outer world. These things are utterly inconsistent with the maintenance of the iron curtain in all its impenetrability. Surely then with adroitness and ingenuity western diplomacy may succeed in wringing from the Soviet's rulers, while they continue to wear their present mask of democracy, concessions in the raising of that curtain in many ways.
I suggest that the United Nations offers a most useful forum for such efforts. The shift in strategy of the U.S.S.R. leaves, shall we say, a chink in its political and diplomatic armour which, skilfully exploited, may lead to many chinks in the iron curtain, each of which may in turn prove embarrassing to the Kremlin. Perhaps I should interpolate here and say that I am not referring to Russia's relations with red China.
Supply-External Affairs
I submit that it should be a major aim of our diplomacy to take advantage of the opening given by the change in Soviet strategy to press in every way possible for the further and speedier lifting of the iron curtain, for the underlying purpose of affording to the Russian people a wider knowledge of the west. The task will not be an easy one; many overtures to that end will meet with refusal. But even refusals may provide useful ammunition for demonstrating the fundamental falsity of the Kremlin's democratic pose, and for this reason we may hope for compliance with at least a modicum of any proposals made. If in the end our efforts enable the Russian people to acquire a wider knowledge and understanding of the west, of its aims, its liberties, its peaceful purposes, the material standards of its workers, I believe the benefits will be incalculable on both sides, leading ultimately, as I have suggested, to the abandonment or at least the curtailment of the projected Soviet economic offensive against the west in favour of a program of internal development, to the primary advantage of the Russian people themselves.
I submit that a most vigorous and unceasing prosecution of policies designed to bring about such a wider knowledge and understanding of the west among the common folk of the U.S.S.R. is at this time well worth thought, effort and money. I am glad to present my views here in the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, for I know of none better qualified than he to plan and implement such a program.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. Zaplilny:: I realize that the committee is anxious to make all possible progress in view of the lateness of the session, and I happen to be in the happy position of being able to accommodate the committee in that respect, because a great deal of what I had intended to say has been more ably said by my colleague from Winnipeg North and also by other members who have taken part in the debate. However, there are one or two matters of a general nature that I wish to raise, and I think this is the appropriate place to do so.
First I should like to say how pleased I was to hear of the great support from all sides of the house at this time for the principle of self-determination for all the nations of the world. It is of particular significance to

Supply-External Affairs me, because about two years ago I had the pleasure of raising that question in a speech in this chamber, and the developments that have taken place since have, I think, confirmed what I had to say at that time. I have heard today and on other occasions in this house what I consider to be a very sound approach to this whole problem with which we are faced in respect of the Soviet union and its influence on Europe and on the world. I believe that as long as this nation and other nations of what we call the democratic west stand firmly for the principles of freedom, democracy and self-determination, much of the smokescreen of propaganda that comes out of the Kremlin will in time clear away, and the people will be able to see clearly that these nations are the ones to look to if we are going to make any progress toward peace.
During the course of this debate and on previous occasions various party leaders have made statements with regard to the principle of self-determination. Only this afternoon the hon. member for Fraser Valley quoted in part a speech that was delivered by his leader in the city of Winnipeg a few weeks ago. On other occasions the Leader of the Opposition has placed statements on the record, and I think it is only fair that I should at this time place on the record part of the statement of my own leader having to do with that particular matter. It was on the same occasion as that referred to by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and I have the honour of reading that statement to the Canadian congress which took place in the city of Winnipeg on July 7. This is in relation to this whole question of self-determination of nations. In part the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar said:
We are in full support of the principles underlying the United Nations-an organization in which I played my part as a Canadian delegate in San Francisco in 1945. We are fully in support of the principles set forth in the Atlantic charter, which acknowledges the right to freedom and selfdetermination for all the nations of the world.
We are, therefore, in full sympathy with the desire of the Ukrainian people to achieve freedom and sovereignty for their nation and for the enjoyment of a progressive, democratic society which could live in peace with the other freedom-loving nations of the world.
I place that on record so it may be alongside the other statements that were made today.
In a general way, I must say that I agreed with the statement made by the minister this morning, but he did make one statement which I think should not be left on the record without comment at this time. He may not have meant to leave that impression, but at any rate the impression I received was not a good one. It was in connection with some
[Mr. Zaplitny.l

of the difficulties arising out of relations with the Soviet union. This is only part of the sentence as I wrote it down, and the full sentence will appear on the record, but he referred to the "Slavic tradition of autocratic rule". I understand the minister is a historian in his own right and he is, of course, a diplomat of high note in this world, but I think that on reflection he will realize that that is a generalization which is not only historically inaccurate but from a diplomatic point of view rather dangerous.
When I heard that statement I took the trouble to look up the Encyclopaedia Britan-nica in order to establish in my mind just what the word "Slav" refers to. I find that the people or race referred to as Slavs are certainly not confined within the borders of the Soviet union, to begin with, and, second, that not all the people confined within the borders of the Soviet union are of Slavic origin. If the minister will take a look at page 789 of the Encyclopaedia Bri-tannica he will find that there are actually three different groups of what are known generally as Slavs. There is the eastern group, which takes in the Russians and Finns. There is the northwestern group, which includes Poles, what were known in the old days as Ruthenians and later as Ukrainians, and Moravians and certain other smaller groups; as a matter of fact, that group runs right into central Germany. Then there is the southern group, including Serbo-Croats, Bulgarians, Roumanians and people from the Balkan peninsula generally, going into southern Hungary and as far as Albania.
I mention this because I think it is always a danger to generalize. To speak of the tradition of autocratic rule of the Slavs is, I think, to overlook a great deal of history. I should like to refer the minister to what was said by William Henry Chamberlin, who was a correspondent for the Christian Science Monitor in the Soviet union for a period of about 12 years, I believe, from 1922 on. Certainly he would have had a very fair opportunity to acquaint himself with these so-called Slavs to whom the minister referred. If you look at page 6 of this book called "The Ukraine: A Submerged Nation", you will find this paragraph:
One of the finest traits in the Ukrainian national character, a trait that is commemorated in some of the most powerful verses of Shevchenko, is the love of liberty. The Ukrainian heroes of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were the Kozaks, the warrior frontiersmen who fled from the yoke of Polish squire or Russian landlord and founded their wild, free military community "beyond the rapids", on the lower Dnieper. They went on expeditions, half-crusading, half-marauding, against Turks and Tartars, liberating large numbers of Christians who were held in slavery. They were unwilling to bow to any despotic

authority, either of Polish king or of Russian tsar or of the big landed Polish aristocrats. They were *quick to rebel against their own elected "atamans", or military chiefs, if they found the latter guilty of oppression or of treason.
That goes back to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. I do not know how far we have to go back to establish tradition, but certainly that is not the tradition of a people that can be referred to as having the tradition of autocratic rule. That does not refer only to Ukranians but refers equally to other so-called Slavic people. Every opportunity people in that area of Europe have had to establish or discover democracy and freedom as we understand it in our nation, they have used; and they have made a heroic effort to win that freedom.
It is true, of course, that they have experienced autocratic rule and they are still experiencing it, and in that respect I agree with the minister when he states that once the spirit of freedom begins to gain momentum in the nations under the domination of the Soviet union, no one knows where it may lead.
In this respect I am perhaps more optimistic and hopeful than some members of the house, when I state that in my opinion the time is not very far off when we will be seeing some great developments in that respect. While in some quarters the industrial and economic progress now being made in the Soviet union is looked upon with a certain amount of fear and apprehension by western nations, to me it represents a great challenge and a great opportunity because, as I think the minister will agree, economic freedom and political freedom thrive equally as well in the same climate, and if the people of that huge part of Europe get a taste of economic progress, their natural desire will be to free themselves politically and to live under a democratic system as do most of the other nations of the world. I believe it will not be long before big developments will be taking place both within the Soviet union itself and among the satellite nations.
The reason we sometimes get the impression that it is almost a hopeless cause for these people to rise up politically and cast off the yokes of dictatorship which hold them is, of course, that we receive a filtered version of what is actually going on in that nation. But we do know on the basis of history, on the basis of experience, on the basis of information which is not generally found in the newspapers, that there is a great deal more thinking, planning and discussing going on, particularly among the younger people in the Soviet union, than we give them credit for. I firmly believe that there is a strong, militant spirit for democracy and freedom within the
Supply-External Affairs borders of that empire which is going to burst forth into big developments before we are many years older. What form it will take it is not for us, of course, to know at the present time.
I have already quoted the opinion expressed by Mr. Chamberlain, which sets out something of the tradition of those people referred to as the Slavic race. I also want to place on the record now certain views expressed by Mr. John A. Armstrong in a book published in 1945 by the Columbia University Press of New York entitled "Ukrainian Nationalism 1939-1945" in which, after having made a study of the history of the nationalism of the Ukraine, he sets out something of the more recent efforts of the people of that nation. I think it would be useful to have it on the record because unfortunately there are some people in Canada and elsewhere who have the impression at times that this spirit of nationalism, this effort to win independence for subjugated nations, is largely led by a group of reactionaries who are out to regain sovereignty for their own personal prestige. There is an impression abroad that the nationalist movements are led by reactionaries.
Potentially or possibly that is sometimes the case, but it is certainly not the case so far as the Ukraine is concerned. I should like to refer hon. members to Mr. Armstrong's book in which he sets out a number of statements made as recently as 1944 by a conference of various groups and organizations in the Ukraine whose common object that this does not represent the views of a particular political party but represents the collective views of people who were hoping that under some circumstances they could set up their old republic based on certain principles. Here, as found in Mr. Armstrong's book, are some of the principles set before that conference and adopted by it:
(a)	Assurance of popular democratic procedures in the accomplishment of the political development of the Ukrainian state by the general assembly of the people.
(b)	Assurance of freedom of thought . . . and of belief.
(c)	Assurance of the development of the Ukrainian national culture.
(d) Assurance of a just social order in the Ukrainian state, free of exploitation of classes and suppression.
(e)	Assurance of the rule of law in practice, and of the equality of all citizens before the law in the Ukrainian state.
(f)	Assurance of civil rights for all national minorities in the Ukraine.
(g)	Assurance of the right of equal educational opportunities for all citizens.
(h)	Assurance of free initiative in creative economic activity, regulated by the requirements and needs of the entire nation.
Then there are further principles along the same line. I place this on record to point

Supply-External Affairs out that far from being a race or group of people who have had no contest or have had less contact with the spirit of democracy and democratic procedures, we find that as recently as 1944, after many years of subjugation and lack of opportunity to develop these principles, an ad hoc conference is called in the midst of war at which principles are set out which I think could safely be incorporated in its platform by any of the political parties represented in this house. Certainly neither the minister nor I would think there was anything in the principles I have cited that would not find its place in our respective parties.
In other words, we have to realize that in that part of the world there is a large mass of people whose desires, whose principles, whose ideologies are in very close relationship to those existing in this very country or in Great Britain, the United States, France or any of the western democracies. Once we realize that I think it will become much more clear to us how great our opportunity is and how important it is at every opportunity, whether through the United Nations or through various diplomatic channels, to stand firm for the principle of self-determination and for the freedom of all nations.
In that respect I should like to put on the record one more quotation from a book by a man who has done a great deal of research to give hope and encouragement not only to people of Ukrainian origin but to people of various racial origins who find themselves without a nation at this time, or whose nation is under the domination of the Soviet union. That man is Professor Clarence Manning, who is a familiar figure on the Canadian scene and is associate professor of Slavic languages at Columbia University. In a book he wrote recently entitled "Ukraine Under the Soviets" he had this to say in his concluding paragraph:
There is only one thing certain. Before the United Nations can function as it was intended, its members must be independent states and peoples. That means that the Ukrainian representatives must be free representatives of a free Ukraine who can contribute their part to the common welfare. In one way or another, that must come and the Muscovite domination must be ended. May it come soon and in a peaceful manner! Then, with that, will come of necessity the ending of the process, the restoration of liberty to the countries within the iron curtain and the possibility of the co-operation of men for the elimination of suffering, want, injustice and fear and the opening of a new and enlightened period in human history.
Of course the process to which he refers here is the continuous process of Soviet imperialist expansion. These are the kind of statements, whether they are made by such men as Professor Manning, whether they are
[Mr. Zaplitny.j
made in this chamber by various representatives of the different parties or in the United States congress or anywhere else in the world, that represent the kind of encouragement and the kind of bedrock of hope which are deeply appreciated by people whose nations have been subjugated by the Soviet dictatorship. That is the kind of thing we can do without resort to violence in order to keep alive that spark of hope and the principles for which these people stand. As long as we stand firm on those principles and use every available opportunity, through the established channels of the United Nations and our free parliaments, to give that kind of encouragement and to make our stand positive and clear, I believe we shall win the respect and friendship of those many millions, of whom approximately 40 million are Ukrainians and millions are of other races, all of whom are represented in one way or another by people who have come to this country. I believe that in this way we shall win their friendship and respect and that we shall have, in my opinion, the best possible alliance so far as our own security is concerned in this country.
I firmly believe that the time is going to come, and soon, when the Soviet union itself is going to find that the desire for liberty, freedom and self-determination within its own borders is so strong and so dynamic that those in power there will not dare to start a fire in which they themselves may become engulfed. If that is the situation it means that we are to that extent far more secure.
In closing I just want to express again my appreciation of the remarks of the hon. member for Fraser Valley, the hon. member for Parkdale and several others who have spoken, and who have given hope and encouragement to the people of the subjugated nations of Europe whose brethern are in Canada, in the United States and scattered all over the world, and who have hopes of seeing their nations becoming sovereign and independent and taking their part with the other free democracies in a free and happy world.


Mr. Castleden:: Mr. Chairman, I just wish to say a word or two on the same matter. I share with the hon. member for Dauphin the surprise, when the minister, in his address to the house today, mentioned the "Slavic tradition of autocratic rule". I think the hon. member for Dauphin is a fine example of what the Ukrainian people have produced in Canada and of what the people from the Ukraine can do in the way of taking the lead in the struggle in the world for freedom and democracy.

Anyone who has taken the trouble, as have I, to study the history of the Ukrainian people could not help but realize what they have gone through. He could not fail to realize that through the centuries they have fought and suffered loss of life and worldly possessions in order to hold the right of freedom when oppression came to them from the east or south again and again. Nor could he fail to realize that a nation which went through all that and still held fast to that spark of freedom must have people of great character who can and will take their place, with free Canadians and people in other parts of the British commonwealth of nations, in upholding the British traditions of freedom. Britain went through a similar struggle. The people of the Ukraine also developed love of freedom through it.
It has been my honour and pleasure to have known, lived among and worked with people from all parts of Europe. I can say that probably 60 per cent of the people in my own constituency come from the Ukraine and eastern parts of Europe. I do not know of any people who have done as well-and certainly few have done better-in taking their place in Canadian life and Canadian democracy. In our institutions of learning, including our universities they have taken their place as good Canadians. When we were called upon to defend ourselves against the threats to democracy, these people were among the first to answer the call. I would say that their history has created in them a great consciousness of the value of democratic freedom. They are extremely alert to any signs of decay in, or any attacks upon that freedom within their country. They are ready to work and to sacrifice in order to maintain that freedom. I think the Canadian people should appreciate that.
My first personal experience with these people was in the schools of our own province. Here I found those students taking the lead in their classes. I found students going to our universities and passing their examinations with the highest marks. I think of a girl from my area who graduated from the University of Saskatchewan in 1950 with the highest marks ever attained by any student in that university, Miss Sylvia Fedoruk, who is today giving leadership in a branch of physics at our university in the treatment of cancer. She has been engaged in the technical part of the handling of the cobalt bomb for cancer treatment.
These people in all walks of life are taking their place. I did not wish the minister's remarks today in any way to cast any reflection upon these people. The lesson which we have to learn is that people are pretty much
Supply-External Affairs the same the world over. You cannot generalize and say that one group of humanity is more this or more that. Given the opportunity, all people throughout the world want freedom. They want the right to live. They want the right of self-determination. They abhor dictatorships and autocracy. They dislike slavery in any form. Such people some day will show the world that that part of Europe and Asia can take its place along with the rest of the world in moving all mankind forward as one people toward a better world.


Mr. Crestohl:: 
adversely affect the western position even though it might displease Mr. Nasser.
It is my respectful submission that at this point the western powers would be turning the other cheek too readily if they showed any concern about displeasing Mr. Nasser. Not strengthening Israel's defences is to be virtually delinquent in strengthening our own defences in the Middle East. Let us therefore not, by an act of omission, place ourselves in a position that may cause painful results. I do not want to pour salt on anyone's wounds, but deep down in the hearts of many diplomats in Washington and in London there must be intense soul searching and genuine remorse for having sent Egypt such an abundance of planes, tanks, warships and other aggressive weapons. They must now bitterly realize that they have built a Frankenstein. I am fearful that the statement I made on the floor of this house some months ago may yet, heaven forbid, materialize; that is, that our men may yet be facing weapons which we have ourselves supplied to an irresponsible and over-ambitious dictator.
When I said six months ago, Mr. Chairman, that the massing by Egypt of vast armaments near Alexandria was for greater game than Israel, it now becomes obvious that it was the Suez canal that was one of those greater objectives. Mr. Nasser would not have dared to do what he did last week if he had not had the vast armaments to defend by force, as he recently declared he is prepared to do, any position he has taken. He would not have dared to make that move were he not aware of the fact that he had a vast collection of armaments in his country which we ourselves helped to build up.
What he has done is what contemporary history shows that all dictators do. They follow the same pattern. They first do something aggressive, and immediately set up a smokescreen with honeyed language declaring peaceful intentions, promising readjustments and subduing the troubled waters by these false manoeuvres. This was the pattern of Hitler following every move he made into neighbouring countries. This was the style of Mussolini and is also the pattern Russia followed in Korea, China, and only in recent days again is attempting in Burma. This is precisely the course that Nasser has set for himself.
He must be stopped and stopped at once. Caressing him will be useless. Negotiating with him will be meaningless and worthless. A barrier must be set up beyond which he dare not go. Sanctions should be imposed. He should be completely isolated for disregarding unilaterally a sacred agreement

entered into almost 100 years ago. That is why the only treatment he deserves is the kind of treatment that he will understand.
I respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that fearless strength must be demonstrated if any value in the future is to be placed on an international agreement or treaty. If Nasser's action is to go unchallenged with all the vigour the civilized world can command, the value of international relations in the future will always remain in doubt. International covenants must be respected. They are sacred. Without them our civilized structure must collapse; and this, Mr. Chairman, must not happen.
The role our country is now playing in international affairs, therefore, justifies it in taking the lead if necessary in urging a vigorous course of action. Canada assumed a righteous role in helping the state of Israel to be established. It is my respectful opinion that we can likewise be helpful in restoring peace in the Middle East, but I am convinced that the most effective way of doing that is to help Israel become strong, to a point that it will deter aggression.
We should no longer accept the argument that giving weapons to Israel will fan the flames of instability in the Middle East. Israel did not cause the nationalization of the Suez canal by Colonel Nasser; Israel did not make the deal which gave Russia a foothold in the Middle East; Israel did not demand the recall of General Burns for doing a masterful, if thankless, task in trying to retain some modicum of peaceful control of the border areas between Israel and her neighbours. If all this is true, and I submit it is true, then the recent events which have stirred the embers of Middle Eastern affairs to a new heat abundantly justify the immediate strengthening of Israel, which is de facto strengthening our own position.
I therefore respectfully urge upon the government that the most effective role Canada can play in maintaining peace, as well as the dignity and self-respect of the western world, is to take immediate steps to persuade the other western powers to demur no longer, and to help create a show of defensive strength in the Middle East which will go a long way to safeguard the peace of the world.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am as
anxious, I think, as any member of the committee to get ahead with the estimates, but I believe that before proceeding the committee would expect me to try to deal with some of the questions which have been raised in the discussion and which have been addressed
Supply-External Affairs to me. It has been said by one or two speakers that in my earlier statement I had omitted to deal with some very important developments. No doubt that is true. I tried to keep within the 30-minute limit, but those other matters have been brought up during the course of the discussion, and I may have a word to say about them now.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether before doing so I can, though not a member of the committee on external affairs-I merely had the honour of appearing before it-associate myself with the very generous tribute paid to the chairman by the hon. member for Prince Albert.
The hon. member for Prince Albert, in his very interesting speech, raised one or two questions which I should like to deal with briefly. He asked whether I could say anything more than I did say about the work of the committee of three of NATO that is looking into the question of non-military cooperation. It is true that I merely mentioned that committee. Of course one obvious reason for that is that the committee is in the middle of its work, and as a member, only one of three members, it is not easy for me to speak about that work at the present time. However, I can say that we had a very useful first meeting in Paris not very long ago, and at that time we decided to send to all the member governments of NATO a questionnaire, a long and detailed questionnaire, about all aspects of non-military co-operation we could think about in order to get the views of governments before proceeding with the drafting of our report. That questionnaire, for instance, has been in the hands of the Canadian government for some time and our answers to the questions I hope are to be considered by the cabinet this week. When these questons are all completed it is the intention of the committee to meet in Paris and discuss each answer with a minister representing the government which has submitted the answers, and to have an exchange of views with those governments, after which we shall proceed with our report.
The hon. member for Prince Albert also -and this is another NATO matter-mentioned the situation in Iceland. It is one, of course, which is worrying to the NATO organization, and it is one that has been discussed already in the NATO council. I am hopeful that as a result of those discussions, this difficulty over the United States air base in Iceland can be solved, and that Iceland will continue to give strong and steady support to the organization. It is an important matter because the base is an important one; but probably just as important as the

Supply-External Affairs air base itself is the situation of Iceland in so far as radar communication and installations are concerned. Therefore we must hope and do everything we can in NATO to resolve this difficulty, and I have some expectation that this will be possible before long.
The hon. member for Prince Albert also mentioned, and it is a very important matter indeed, the question of the reappraisal-I think that was the word he used-of our defence policies which is now under way and about which there has been so much discussion recently in various NATO capitals. What actually is happening is that the governments that are concerned, understandably, with adapting their defence and indeed their foreign policies to new circumstances-but I am talking about defence policies now-have begun to exchange views as to what, if anything, should be done. Those views are to be discussed in the NATO council, which quite properly is becoming increasingly effective as an agency for consultations of this kind. As I tried to say this morning, it is of vital importance that these things be done collectively through NATO and not unilaterally by national decision without consultation with other NATO members.
This question of political consultation in NATO, which the hon. member referred to, is one of very great importance and one to which our committee is giving special attention. I think if the record could be given for the last six months or the last year it would be shown that NATO has been more effective in respect to political consultations during that time than in previous years. That is as it should be.
The hon. member for Eglinton had something to say about the recent commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London. Apparently he has the impression that this government was not particularly interested in the conference and even implied-I hope I am not doing him an injustice-that we were not interested in commonwealth conferences generally. He suggested that the Canadian Prime Minister and the Canadian delegation had not done much to prepare for this conference and had made a pretty small contribution to it. I cannot accept that particular criticism.
We are interested in commonwealth conferences. We are very concerned with maintaining and strengthening commonwealth connections, which are of as great value in the world in which we live today as they have been at any time; and largely because of the three Asian countries. I think I am correct when I say that we have participated in more commonwealth meetings, including prime ministers' meetings, during the last 10


years than in any similar period since the commonwealth was established.
I can assure the hon. member that a great deal of preparation went into the work of this conference on behalf of the Canadian and other governments. It may well be that this work and the interest we have shown has not been reflected in the commonwealth conference communique, which has been described as a collection of cliches. The hon. member was impatient, and I can understand his impatience, because we had not come to more decisions at this meeting. I would ask him, decisions on what? There are specific problems within the commonwealth between commonwealth governments, and I admit that some of the most acute of them were not discussed at the prime ministers' conference. With my own knowledge, and I am sure this is shared by others, of the background of some of these problems I can say it was a very good thing that they were not discussed. If discussion had been insisted upon it might very well have broken up the meeting.
There was one specific problem settled, and that was the admission of Ceylon, when it changes to republic status, into the commonwealth as a republic. That was a matter of no small importance to the commonwealth, to continue in its membership Ceylon as a republic.
However, in so far as the main subjects on the agenda were concerned, it was not a question of reaching decisions, it was a question of exchanging views so that each member of the commonwealth would have the benefit of the views of the others. If you looked at the composition of the commonwealth today you would realize that there would be very divergent views on most of the international matters which concern us. When you have a membership which includes-I am mentioning these countries because they do have different and sometimes opposing views on certain international matters-South Africa on the one hand and India on the other, or New Zealand on the one hand and Ceylon on the other, it is not going to be easy to come to decisions on all international matters. But from this kind of composition comes a particular value in the discussion of these problems.
I believe that was very well exemplified in the meeting at London. I think every commonwealth representative left with the feeling that he had learned something new about these international problems by listening to other viewpoints, and especially the viewpoint of the Asian members of the commonwealth. I think that was of particular advantage to the other commonwealth prime ministers.

During the discussion several questions were asked about our policy in regard to the Middle East. I touched on that matter this morning, and I went into it at very considerable length when I spoke in the house earlier in the session. The hon. member for Prince Albert felt that we should have taken, or should still take no doubt, a stronger stand in support of the three governments which are now meeting in London in connection with the Suez canal crisis.
The hon. member for Eglinton complained that we were adopting-I think I am quoting him correctly-a lofty attitude of distant spectators, and he wondered whether we were taking this crisis seriously enough. Indeed we are, because it is a serious matter. Yet I think we were well advised in this government not to intervene, and indeed no other government has intervened in the way of blanket support. So far as I know the discussions in London have not as yet resulted in a decision even among the three governments concerned. This government, however, has already expressed its concern over this matter and has indicated our support for the principle of international control of the Suez canal, a principle which they are trying to work out in London at the present time.
But I doubt, even from the commonwealth point of view, whether it would be wise for us to go much further at this particular moment. Indeed, while the hon. member was speaking this afternoon I received a telegram from our representative in one of the Asian countries of the commonwealth which indicated that the feeling in that country on this matter was quite different indeed from that which exists in Canada or in certain other parts of the commonwealth. So while I think we must condemn and express real concern over what I have called already the arbitrary action of the Egyptian government; while we must do what we can to support the principle of international control of these waters, and the time may come when we will be given an opportunity to express our support of that principle by some kind of action, I do not think at this time we would be helping anyone by expressing more detailed views.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister give the house and the country a statement of the situation generally in regard to the Suez canal? Press reports certainly give a very dark and sombre picture of the situation. Would the minister care to comment within the limitations of the restrictions which we all realize have to be imposed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: All I can say is that the information we received earlier this evening
Supply-External Affairs from London does not confirm some of the alarmist headlines which have been appearing in the press today about troop movements and all that sort of thing. We have reason to believe, although the information has not reached us officially as yet, that agreement has been reached in London this afternoon by which an international meeting will be called, at which it is hoped a settlement of this problem can be reached which would protect the use of the canal, and that no action other than this will be necessary for that purpose. That is all I can say, partly because the meetings in London are not completed and partly because I do not think I should go beyond that.
So far as the problem of arms shipments to Israel is concerned, I think our position has been made clear on that. Discussions have been going on among certain governments, three or four governments, with a view not to concerting a plan or a collective arrangement governing shipments of arms to Israel but with a view to seeing whether the responsibilities in this matter can be shared and whether our plans and our policies are in agreement; those discussions had come to a conclusion a few days ago when the Suez crisis developed. As I think I said yesterday in the house, any decision on our part arising out of those discussions has been postponed for a short time pending our effort to establish the relationship, if any, of the Suez crisis to the general situation in Palestine.
By that I do not want to give the impression that we are going to delay indefinitely because of this Suez situation, but it was felt advisable, and not only by this government, to delay the decision for a few days. I know that the government has taken a long time to come to a decision in this matter. It is a very difficult and a very complicated matter. Of course if a certain resolution had been passed in this house last February the decision would have been made for us, and our decision would have been very simple indeed. We would not have been permitted to send anything. However, conditions change, and men change with changing conditions, but we want to be pretty certain before we fill an order of this kind- a squadron of F-86's-that this will be conducive to security and stability in the area concerned. All I can say in addition is that I hope in a few days this matter will be disposed of in a satisfactory way.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Would the minister permit a question? He has not dealt with the question I asked him this afternoon, as to whether the events of this week involving the Suez canal will be regarded by the government

Supply-External Affairs as having a bearing upon the government's decision in regard to the application of Israel for those Sabre jets.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just tried to answer that by saying that there may be a relationship between those two things which has not yet been established, to my satisfaction, but it was felt advisable to delay any decision for a few days until we could, after exchanging views with other governments, decide in our own minds what relationship, if any, did exist between these two things.
My hon. friend from Eglinton had something to say also about the Colombo plan. He felt that we might do more to show our support for that plan than we have been doing. In that connection I might repeat that, as hon. members know, we are increasing our contribution to the Colombo plan very substantially this year. It will be a larger increase than that of any other member of the Colombo plan, and I am sure that increase will be welcomed by all members of the house.
The hon. member said there was no limit to what could be used by the recipient countries under the Colombo plan and, to indicate that, he quoted from Mr. Cavell, who appeared before the external affairs committee and who, I agree, is a man who has won the respect not only of that committee but of others who know him. As shown on page 145 of the hearings of the committee Mr. Cavell did say, in reply to a question:
I think I can say now that I could spend any amount parliament agrees to give me, within reason. It is not too easy to spend this money, and I do not want to give that impression-
It is not so much the spending of money; it is the spending of money effectively. On that point Mr. Cavell went on to say:
If we can press on our leaders the necessity of making these people available;-
That is technical people, who are indispensable in connection with the contributions we are making under the Colombo plan in seeing that the money is well and efficiently spent.
-and having done that I would hope the situation would change to such an extent-


Mr. Goode:: It is just a hope. It is not just a matter of the government providing money.


Harry Peter Cavers: That is so. It is a matter of national effort.


Mr. Michener:: Would the expenditure of more money today be dependent on more technical people being available to you?


Harry Peter Cavers: Of course . . .


Daniel Roland Michener: I take it we could not have more projects at the present time without there being more people in your administration?
That is, technical people from Canada to administer the expenditures.


Harry Peter Cavers: Quite right.


Then further on:


Daniel Roland Michener: Your experience is that it would not be easy to get more at the present time?


Harry Peter Cavers: I think that expresses it very well.
So, while it is true that we could spend unlimited sums of money, because the needs are unlimited in that part and in other parts of the world, nevertheless I think it is even more important to make sure that the money we do spend is used effectively. The additional amount that is, I hope, being appropriated this year by parliament can be used effectively. It will be used for the establishment of the atomic reactor in India and for the building of the Warsak hydroelectric project in Pakistan, which has been a very difficult project indeed, involving as it does the engineering and technical co-operation of Pakistani and Canadian technical people. This extra money can also be spent in other constructive projects.
I join with the hon. gentleman in feeling that what has been done under the Colombo plan is one of the most valuable and imaginative things in post-war history. I hope we shall continue to support it constructively, and I hope that other countries will take the same stand in the future as they have in the past.
There is just one other matter, and that is a question which has been referred to by so many speakers, the liberation of subject peoples who are now under the Soviet yoke. In this connection my hon. friend from Dauphin read me a lecture a few minutes ago, and I must confess I deserved the lecture, because if I ever had any reputation as a historian I have certainly now lost it as far as being a historian of the Slav peoples is concerned. I talked about the Slav tradition of autocratic rule. That, I must confess, is a careless and unhistorical expression insofar as some Slav peoples are concerned, notably the Ukrainian people, the Czech people and the Polish people. They have a long tradition of democratic rule, when they had freedom in which they could express that tradition.
I think of Czechoslovak Bohemia in the seventeenth century and the Ukrainians during their great period. In fact in Poland they carried this passion for representative government in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to the extent that every member of the Polish diet in those days had a veto. But of course what I had in mind, and what I should have said-and I think this is historically accurate-was the Russian tradition, under the czars and under the communists, of autocratic rule. I think that does apply, and 1 think it might even apply to the develop-nents going on inside the Kremlin walls now.

But I should like to join with all members of the committee in their expressions of encouragement to these subject people of the Soviet peoples whose passion for freedom has not been destroyed by the despotism of centuries, and I am thinking again of the Baltic peoples and the Ukrainians, who are now subject peoples under Soviet rule.
I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert that the people of the free world must continue to let these subject peoples know that they are not forgotten and that at every opportunity we should give them what encouragement we can. By that I do not mean that we should arouse hopes that cannot be fulfilled, hopes of immediate liberation by force, because that would be the cruelest thing we could do to them; but we should let them know that they are not forgotten and one day, please God, they will be free again. We should take every opportunity we have of making that clear to them in any way which is open to us.
I am inclined to think myself that in addition to the encouragement they will get from us which should strengthen their morale, probably the best chance of freedom they have in the years ahead is to have those forces which may make for freedom, and which have been released by the new leaders of Russia for the time being at least, also given encouragement on our side. In a country where that kind of release is taking place, if these forces can gain momentum the chief beneficiaries of that kind of impulse will be the subject peoples now under the Soviet union. If there is anything we can do in that regard we ought to be proud to do it, especially in this country which owes so much to the people of these races.
That, Mr. Chairman, I think and I hope, deals with some of the questions that were raised during the course of the discussion. If I have omitted any, maybe hon. members will bring them to my attention.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think one was omitted unintentionally. I asked what general plans were arrived at, at the prime ministers' conference or as the result of consultations among the NATO nations, relative to the new look policy of the U.S.S.R. respecting trade and economic infiltration through the media of trade. I wonder whether the minister would care to say something about that.
What are the general plans? At the commonwealth prime ministers' conference was any consideration given to trade arrangements within the commonwealth? At the NATO council meeting was consideration given among the member nations of NATO 67509-434J
Supply-External Affairs with the view that multilateral trade within the NATO nations might be encouraged and expanded to the end that the communist offensive in this regard, which up to the present has enjoyed quite a measure of success, might conceivably be met or at least stopped to some degree?
I was also wondering what the minister might have to say with regard to Iceland. As I understand the situation in Iceland, a major source of complaint on the part of the majority of the people there arose by reason of the failure of one or other of the NATO nations to maintain the extent of trade that had prevailed prior to 1952, particularly in fish and fish products. Are there any plans in mind whereby Iceland might be induced to change its attitude as recently announced by the premier of that country? What is being done to offset the tremendous increase in the fish trade with Iceland by the U.S.S.R.? Those are two or three matters on which I would appreciate further enlightenment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not know if I can give very much enlightenment on these subjects, but I shall try to deal with them briefly. So far as the first question is concerned, whether there were discussions at the commonwealth conference which would have a bearing on what has been referred to as the Soviet economic offensive, there were such discussions because we had a whole day devoted to economic matters. During that time there was a very searching examination of trade problems, especially within the sterling area, because all members of the commonwealth except Canada are members of the sterling area, and there was agreement that everything possible should be done to reduce obstructions in the way of trade and bring about the broadest possible measure of multilateral trade and payments.
But when you get to the other question of the economic offensive of the Soviet union, if you want to call it that, this illustrates very graphically the point I tried to make a few minutes ago about the divergence of membership and therefore the divergence of views within the commonwealth. There would obviously be a different approach to that subject, to its dangers and to how they should be met, if it is dangerous, on the part of India than on the part of say New Zealand. There are members of the commonwealth which are receiving economic assistance from the Soviet union of their own free will, and it is not likely that those members are going to join in any commonwealth decision to condemn what might be called the Soviet economic offensive.
But it was agreed by other members of the commonwealth, as I tried to say this

Supply-External Affairs morning, that Soviet policy is now expressing itself-and this has been repeated by more than one speaker this afternoon-in new ways, and one of those new ways is trade and commercial arrangements and infiltration into the economies of other countries through economic assistance. It is recognized by a good many members of the commonwealth, by some members possibly more than others, that this constitutes a challenge to ourselves. Yet I think most of us felt that we would be making a great mistake if we tried to engage in any sort of competitive auction sale with the Soviet as to who could do the most for any particular country irrespective of whether that country really needed the particular aid in question. It is a complicated and difficult subject.
It has also been discussed at the NATO council. There is probably greater unanimity of view there as to what is involved in the matter than in the commonwealth because of the nature of the NATO membership. The NATO permanent council and the secretariat have been giving a good deal of study in the last two or three months to ways and means which might be adopted by the individual governments, because after all this can only be done by individual governmental action, to meet this new challenge which is now coming from Moscow.
Then there is the question of Iceland. It is quite true that one of the reasons for discontent, if you like, in certain sections of the Icelandic population about the NATO association is the trade dispute between Iceland and the United Kingdom in respect of fish and the concept of territorial waters.


John George Diefenbaker: And the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Also there is uneasiness on the part of certain of the people of Iceland in having a United States air base on their territory at a time when the sense of imminent danger seems to be somewhat removed. The trade dispute between the United Kingdom and Iceland did result-and this is an interesting illustration of Soviet tactics

in the Soviet moving in and offering to take all the surplus catch of Iceland's fish, thereby possibly saving them at that particular time from economic distress.
I hope that situation can be rectified but, as I said a few moments ago, I feel that the discussions which are now taking place inside NATO and with the Iceland government will at least provide a solution for these difficulties which will permit that small but important NATO country to support an organization which is as important for Iceland's security as it is for that of the rest of us.


Mr. Blackmore:: I wonder whether the minister would mind elaborating or elucidating slightly that expression of his, namely "economic infiltration"? Can he put that expression in terms that we would find more familiar to us? Just what is the nature of the infiltration in which the Russians are indulging?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to go into detail but it would take a long time. Maybe my hon. friend and I might have a chat about it one day. I think it is fairly obvious what it means. It means that the supplying government, the assisting government, by virtue of its economic assistance, will achieve an influence which will be more than economic and the country which is getting the assistance will probably become more and more dependent on the supplying government; or it may mean that economic assistance is given with political strings attached which would provide for infiltration.


John Horne Blackmore: Am I right in assuming that in some respects it resembles what the United States is doing when she gives an export subsidy as a result of which her goods go into the markets of another country on an uneconomic or uncompetitive basis?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I did not have the United States in mind when I just spoke.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, if the general discussion is concluded I should like to raise a matter on the first item. It is a matter of detail. We are dealing with the general item of departmental administration.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, is it the understanding now that the first item passes and we are going along?


Donald Methuen Fleming: No. I am raising a question as to a figure which is part of this first item.


William Alfred Robinson: Item 92 is still before the committee.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Item 92 is departmental administration. In the details on page 174 there is a subitem that is fourth from the bottom of the page, "Publication of departmental reports and other material, $112,200". This represents an increase over last year. I wish to say a brief word about departmental publications. There are some of the publications of the Department of External Affairs that I think all of us would commend, but the use made of at least one of these publications is something that I think calls for comment in this house.
At an earlier point in the session I drew attention to the use made of a publication entitled The Canadian Weekly Bulletin, which is issued by the information division of the

Department of External Affairs. On February 9, as reported at page 996 of Hansard I drew attention to the fact that in one of the January issues the information division in this publication had published the speech the Secretary of State for External Affairs made in the house on January 24 on the subject of arms shipments abroad, but had not included the speeches of any of the other members of the house, including members of the opposition. The occasion was a debate on this extremely important and vexed question. This publication of the department contained copious extracts from the speech of the minister in this house, but did not so much as mention the speeches made by other hon. members.


Mr. Richardson:: They publish only good speeches.


Donald Methuen Fleming: 
An hon. Member:: A good speech.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -on pages 1, 2 and 6. Half the issue is given over to publishing, at public expense, extracts from the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the Conservative amendment to the last supply motion. That was a debate that extended over two days. I think hon. members will
Supply-External Affairs agree that it was an important debate on an important issue that was raised by an amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition, and in which what we consider to be an important statement of Conservative party policy was set forth. Yet this publication sees fit to devote half of this issue to extracts from the speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but makes not the slightest reference to any speech made by any other hon. member in this house in an important debate.
Mr. Chairman, if this bulletin exists simply to act as a sort of mouthpiece or agency of propaganda for the government or for the minister who holds the portfolio of this department, I think it is high time that the publication was stopped. I do not consider it to be a proper application of public funds that this bulletin, at public expense, should exist for the apparent purpose of simply publicizing speeches made by members of the government in debates in this house, when apparently it lies completely outside the scope of this publication to refer to, let alone quote from, speeches made in the same debate by any other members of this house or, as in the last example I mentioned, even to refer to the amendment introduced by the Leader of the Opposition and which was being discussed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he made the remarks which are quoted in this issue and which occupy half of it.
Let me make my view as plain as I can put it, Mr. Chairman. If this is the purpose this bulletin is intended to serve, I think we should stop it at once. It is an improper use [DOT]of public funds.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this particular bulletin is to keep our offices abroad and other governments abroad informed of statements of government policy, so that our representatives abroad may know what government policy is in these matters. It may well be that speeches made by opposition members on these particular subjects are much more instructive and much more informative than are some of the speeches made by government members stating policy. But this airmail bulletin is for circulation abroad. It has a circulation in Canada to diplomats, representatives of foreign governments and members of parliament if they desire to have it. Every six months-I think I am correct in saying this and I am having it checked-we send out cards to those who are on the mailing list as M.P.'s, foreign representatives and libraries in Canada asking whether they wish to continue to receive this service, as a statement of Canadian policy for officers abroad. If they do not reply to the postcard they are stricken off the list. So I think, Mr. Chairman, there is no desire

Supply-External Affairs on the part of myself or the department to use this bulletin for propaganda in Canada.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I just wish to make this observation because I want to keep this discussion right on the point. I am aware of the fact that this bulletin goes abroad. I have been with some of the representatives of the department abroad when it has come into their hands, and certainly no fault would be found with the communication to officers of the department abroad, or diplomatic representatives of the country abroad, of information. It is necessary to keep them well posted on government policy. But it seems to me that if they are to be adequately posted on what is going on in this country, their source of information should not be confined, when it is a matter of extracting speeches made in the House of Commons, to statements made either by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Surely what is required on the part of these diplomatic representatives or officers abroad, thousands of miles from home and often out of touch with the details of what is going on here, is that they know something of the tenor of the discussion here and the various views that are expressed. A diplomatic representative abroad, let us say somebody 10,000 miles from home, reads this publication. What real information does he derive from this bulletin of July 25? Well, he knows that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has expressed these views before. Surely, it would be instructive to that diplomatic representative to know the nature of the debate in the House of Commons, and that it was not a one-sided debate with only one minister speaking. If it is information that is intended to be conveyed to these diplomatic representatives and officers abroad, then surely it ought to be adequate and well balanced information and not just these well-chosen extracts from ministers' speeches.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I quite agree that our officers abroad should not be restricted to this kind of information, and they are not. This air mail bulletin goes out at once as a statement of government policy. We also send Hansard to all our officers abroad, as my hon. friend no doubt knows, and we send them other sources of information in respect to what goes on in this House of Commons, on both sides of the house. The air mail bulletin goes out immediately because very often a foreign government will see some statement of Canadian policy in the press and will ask the Canadian representative, "What does your minister say about this?" or, "What is

government policy?" We try to get that air mail bulletin out to them for that purpose.
In so far as its domestic circulation is concerned, I think I should look into the possibility of cancelling that completely, if that meets the views of my hon. friend.


Donald Methuen Fleming: That question arose once before. I remember being asked that question by the former deputy, and I said I would like to be continued on the mailing list because I should like to check up on the sort of thing the department was sending out. In view of the examples which have turned up here tonight I think it was a good thing I did, because I feel the Canadian public is entitled to know what use is being made of public funds in this respect.
I doubt very much if the taxpayers of this country, who after all are footing the bill, are going to think that this is the way to keep their diplomatic representatives abroad fully posted on what is going on in Canada. Surely, some of the things that are said by members of the opposition in this house would contribute something to the information of officers abroad.


Mr. Nesbitt:: I should like to ask the minister a question along the lines of the questions asked by the hon. member for Eglinton. Is this air mail bulletin the usual method of informing departmental officials abroad in our embassies and consulates as to government policy? I would rather have thought important questions of policy or changes of policy would have been sent by code or telex or something of that nature?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, of course, that is done. If there is an important statement of government policy in this house and it is of any possible interest to a foreign government, it is telegraphed to our representative in that country at once. Then the telegraphic summary is followed up by an air mail bulletin. Then if these statements were made in the house in a debate, the statements would be sent to the officers abroad in the form of a copy of Hansard, the weekly bulletin or external affairs monthly bulletin. I think it is true, therefore, to say that our officers abroad have fairly adequate information about what goes on on both sides of the house in respect to these matters.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Only they receive the government statements by air mail and they have to wait until surface mail is delivered to learn the views of the opposition.


Mr. Hahn:: This question of publicity was raised a year ago by the hon. member for Fraser Valley, and it has always interested

me. I have searched through Hansard of last year in order to get the answer, but I could not find it. I am wondering if the minister would give an answer now on the question of the circulation of mail similar to that which the Soviet has the privilege of doing through our postal facilities. I am wondering if we utilize a similar system in Russia to inform them about our democratic way of life so that they can become familiar with it, or are we not privileged to do that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Chairman, we have not attempted to circulate in the Soviet union anything comparable to the bulletin that they circulate in this country. This is a free country and subject to the observance of the law, people, even diplomats from the Soviet countries, can use the mails for the circulation of their literature. In any event, this would be a rather expensive undertaking in the Soviet union. When we considered this sometime ago we felt that the expenditure would probably not be warranted, because we would have no assurance that anything we sent through the mail would ever reach the destination we had intended.
However, there has been an easing in that situation for the time being. My hon. friend may have noticed in the press that the United States is now beginning to circulate United States information in the Soviet union and this is something I think certainly we should reconsider. We are in the process of doing that. But in so far as Soviet embassy literature in this country is concerned, they have the same freedom as other embassies and legations to use the mails as long as they do not contravene the laws in doing so.


Frederick George Hahn: I was not indicating, at least I hope the minister did not interpret my remarks as indicating, that I did not think they should have the same privileges as other Canadians in using the mails. I just wanted to find, out if we had the same privilege in the Soviet union.


Mr. Nicholson:: I am glad the minister mentioned the new policy of the United States, because I noticed in the Sunday New York Times some pictures of the first edition of this bulletin. Is the minister co-operating with Washington with a view to giving some publicity to Canada in this publication that is going to be circulated in the U.S.S.R.?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If we do it I think we ought to do it as a strictly Canadian venture. I think it would be more effective, if we did it at all, to do it ourselves. It would also be more expensive.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Did the Department of
External Affairs have any official as an
Supply-External Affairs observer at the recent conference attended by the President of the United States at Panama?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, we had no observer at that conference. It was, as my hon. friend knows, a conference of representatives of the American republics. It lasted for a very short time and no substantial business was discussed. A declaration was signed by the presidents of the American states, but I think that was the only thing that was done there. We had no observer.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: When other conferences take place among the inter-American countries, such as the Pan-American conference of which we are not a member, do we normally have observers at those conferences?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has been our practice. When there are interAmerican conferences dealing with substantial matters, either political or economic, we usually have someone there to keep track of what is going on.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Has the government considered any change of policy with respect to closer relationships between this country and the South American countries? I mean by that, of course, such as contemplating any entrance into the Pan-American union, or anything of that nature?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was a very interesting speech on that matter this afternoon by the hon. member for Roberval, in which he expressed the view that we should establish a closer association, possibly through membership in the organization of American states. We have not done so. The matter has been under consideration for a good many years. In the earlier days-and I am thinking now of the 1930's-our application for membership would not have been, I think, unanimously approved, but there is no difficulty of that kind now, I admit. Nevertheless we have not taken that particular step.
I would like to emphasize, however, that if we have not done so it is not, as I have sometimes read and heard stated, that we have been restrained from doing so by any influence outside of Canada. This is a decision we can make quite freely on our own. We have, however, as my hon. friend knows, increased our contact with the South American states in exchanging our diplomatic representation in that part of the world.
There are two or three South American states and three or four Central American states where we have not yet established diplomatic representation, but our relations
6838	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs are growing in importance and in intimacy, and I think that is to be welcomed. I hope it will not be long before we have diplomatic contact with every one of the Latin American states. That, of course, will also result in extra expenses.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Chairman, I am very delighted to hear all the information the minister has given us. It is certainly very enlightening, but I am not quite sure that the minister answered the question I asked. Is the government contemplating joining the Pan-American union?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at the moment, Mr. Chairman. I do not think it would be true for me to say that there is any immediate likelihood of our going into the organization of American states, but it is something we should keep under consideration.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask a question in connection with the general policies of the government. I wanted to ask it, in fact, before we went on with the details, but possibly I can put it now. This afternoon I placed on record several statements attributed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs relative to views expressed in connection with world government and his attitude on these matters. I wonder whether he could just take a moment somehow to clarify some of these statements and let us know exactly where he stands in relationship to that question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that I omitted to deal with those references of my hon. friend; I do remember them. He has repeated the question, where do I stand on world government and national sovereignty? Mr. Chairman, I believe of course in national sovereignty in Canada and in other countries, because it is the expression of our political freedom. I think it is quite academic to talk about world government at this time. I am not going to say, and I have never said, that in the historical development of peoples and nations there may not come a time when the existing nation state will not be a big enough political unit to face the problems that will face humanity on this planet.
Having said that, I should go on to say that we are not likely to be faced with that contingency for a long time. My hon. friend quite rightly stresses the importance of national sovereignty, but he must also recall the importance that rightly attaches also to collective security and to collective pacts to protect our security. This has a relation to national sovereignty. When we join organizations like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization we voluntarily give up, of our own


free will, some part of our sovereignty in the interest of our security. That is what our membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization means, and that is why it would be unwise, I think, to be too dogmatic about this matter.
I am quite satisfied, on the basis of my present knowledge, that a group of nation states each with national sovereignty can work together co-operatively in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. There are some members of this organization-and I am sure the hon. .member will approve of this- that are trying to work out special arrangements which will bring them closer together in a European system in which each one will give up some of its national sovereignty in the interest of European unity. That is a development which I, for one, welcome. I also recall, as an illustration of the danger of being dogmatic on these matters, a dark period in our history in 1940, when Mr. Churchill, always a fervent believer in British freedom and sovereignty, made an offer to France for complete political union, if that was necessary to win the war; an offer which was not, of course, accepted at that time.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Was it not a union of their empires?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edward Turney Applewhaite: Item 616 is under the same heading. Shall it be carried now?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is it not usual to leave the supplementaries to the end?


Edward Turney Applewhaite: If the committee wishes, the supplementaries can be left to the end. In some departments we are taking them under the heading as we come to them. The supplementary will be left.
95. Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, $1,987,207.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a matter on this item. This relates to representation abroad, construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, and so forth, a vote of approximately $2 million. The details, beginning on page 178, set forth the amounts to be expended on the various diplomatic missions abroad. I draw attention to this, Mr. Chairman, because I am going to make some comments on the subitem on page 179 relating to operational expenses and capital equipment for the post in Brazil.

I think the house every now and again should stop and look behind some of these large figures. It is altogether too easy, indeed deceptively easy, to take these large figures and not make a detailed examination of some of the expenditures that lie behind them.
Now, in connection with our post at Rio de Janeiro, I think the house ought to be aware of some of the information at least that was obtained by members of the committee at sessions of the external affairs committee by questioning officials of the department. In this regard, I think the house should be aware of the extent of the expenditure in acquisition of the embassy property at Rio de Janeiro, and also of the expenditures on the building.
It happens that the department had an option at one time to purchase for an embassy the residence of a Canadian living in Rio de Janeiro, Major MacCrimmon, a senior official of the Brazilian Traction Company for, I think, the amount of $80,000. That option, according to the wisdom of the department, was not exercised and over a period of several years the department showed interest in a property which eventually it purchased at a price of $350,000. The actual amount in Canadian funds was $341,700. That was only the purchase price of the building. The department then found it necessary to spend $25,000 in the renovation of that building. But that provided only an empty building, so the department incurred expenditures which will total $95,000 for furnishings. The aggregate of those figures is $470,000 for that one embassy and the furnishings.
Canada has now a good many of these embassies abroad, and I think hon. members will need to ask themselves whether this expenditure on this one embassy is justified under the circumstances. The expenditure has been incurred, and it is not a situation where the committee can undo what has been done, but this is the sort of information which I submit the committee should ponder well in approaching the proposed vote of $2 million for capital expenditures abroad for the housing of our diplomatic representatives.
Let me say at the outset that having seen a good many of our posts in different places abroad I am not disposed to be narrow or cheese-paring in my attitude toward the acquisition of properties abroad as embassies for our diplomatic representatives but-


John Horace Dickey: Why do it?


Donald Methuen Fleming: If my hon. friend will keep his wisdom to himself I think we will make
Supply-External Affairs more progress. There is, however, a great difference between being reasonable in these matters, as I think most of us would wish to be, and approving extravagant expenditures. I should like to submit to the committee that in this expenditure of $470,000 to house one Canadian ambassador abroad we have a very striking example of extravagance.
We had comparisons in the committee with some other embassies abroad or posts of high commissioners. It seems to me that there is no reason why Rio should be regarded as a place where the expenditure of these amounts should be proper and be condoned, when in the capitals of other countries which are as important in the world family of nations as is Brazil the capital expenditures which are thought to be adequate are only a fraction of this sum. For instance, we were reminded that our property in Dublin for the high commissioner there is very modest by comparison. But I am not putting this simply on the basis of comparison with what exists in other capitals. I think the committee would wish to look at the intrinsic merits of this particular expenditure I have referred to, which totals $470,000. Let us see what was said by the officials of the department to justify this figure. Mr. Macdonnell representing the department was asked who made the decisions in regard to these matters, and he replied:
The problem of selecting the right scale of furnishings is a difficult one which we face constantly. I do not believe that we are entirely our own masters in this field. Some regard has to be paid to local conditions, and to the type of establishments that other countries comparable to Canada maintain. Our scales of representation, of course, vary a good deal from one country to another. In some places they can be relatively modest, partly because of the customs of the country and partly because of the scale of prices when we come to buy land or property or to pay rent. It happens that in Brazil prices are high and the standards of representation are pretty high. I think perhaps the brief historical summary which I gave will indicate how long the department spent in exploring this situation before making any recommendations to the government. It was our view that this was about the best purchase that we were likely to be able to make for as far ahead as we could see. We spent five years, really, in looking for it. The house is a large one and the furnishings have to measure up to a certain standard.
In dealing with the standard, as I said, I am not one of those who would take a narrow or cheese-paring view, but-


An hon. Member:: No, no.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If hon. members do not wish to contribute to our progress with this, they can carry on as they are; or do they wish to obstruct?


Mr. Lesage:: Blackmail.
6840	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is that what the hon. member is practising?


Jean Lesage: No; you are.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Because other countries may seek to start some sort of race in regard to embellishing their embassies in a particular country is no reason why Canada should seek to keep up with the Joneses in a situation like that. Let us look a little further at the furnishings.


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Harris:: I believe it was the general desire of all parties to do what we could to wind up the business if possible.


Mr. Churchill:: Why did you have so many of your fellows speak?


Walter Edward Harris: Because we have not yet come to the point where we are so anxious to close up that we would bar all government members from speaking. If that is the only way that we can wind up parliament then we can discuss it on that basis. I do not know who called ten o'clock and I did not hear it myself, but would it not be possible to continue with this for some time in order to see what progress we could make?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There had been some hope that we could finish up by the 11th of this month, but that was based on the understanding that we would have to finish this today. As the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has said, five government members spoke today, several of them reading speeches which took quite a long time. There does not seem to be any chance of getting through now, and there is therefore no point in going on beyond ten o'clock tonight.


Walter Edward Harris: When we have arrived at ten o clock with an item almost completed I think it could be said that by sitting a few minutes longer we might be able to complete it.


Donald Methuen Fleming: We are not through with this item yet.


Walter Edward Harris: If there is any disposition to make suitable arrangements now so that parliament might be prorogued by the end of next week it would hardly seem possible to maintain the ten o'clock closing hour. Even if it was not certain that we could complete a particular item or a particular department I think the extra time could be put in so those who feel they have to speak in the interests of their constituencies would be

able to do so. Perhaps we ought to take the extra time even if we realize that we would have to adjourn an hour later or something like that and still not have carried the item. We would have got behind us some of the discussion which would have to be dealt with anyway in order to ultimately carry the item.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There was general agreement that we would sit beyond ten o'clock, but we were not able to finish the first item until nearly nine o'clock this evening, and with that situation I think we might as well call it ten o'clock and then see what can be done from now on.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might have leave to revert to motions in order to obtain first reading of the amendments to the Customs Tariff pursuant to the resolutions which were passed in May.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister leave to revert to motions for this purpose?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CUSTOMS TARIFF

Walter Edward Harris: for leave to introduce Bill No. 448, to amend the Customs Tariff.


Donald Methuen Fleming: What is the reason for the long delay in submitting the bill after passing the resolution?


Walter Edward Harris: I was not satisfied with the wording of some items, and we took a good deal of time to get it to my satisfaction.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is there anything more than the wording? Are there any substantive changes?


Walter Edward Harris: Nothing other than the wording.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: Tomorrow I hope we can complete external affairs and go on with the other items that I mentioned for today.


[Stage Direction]
It being five minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Question

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


[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
92.	Departmental administration, $4,379,430.
93.	Passport office administration, $275,251.
94.	Representation abroad-operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act. for the appointment and fixing of salary rates of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $7,210,961.
67509-435J
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 2, 1956
[Stage Direction]
Second report of joint committee on the federal district commission.-Mr. Dumas.