1956-01-31

SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDER 58- DEBATE ON EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to lay on the table copies of correspondence between some of the provincial premiers and myself since my letter of January 6 last, concerning fiscal arrangements. I should like to point out that since my reply to the hon. member for Three Rivers on Thursday last I have received letters from the premier of Quebec and the premier of New Brunswick. Copies of those letters are included with the other communications I am laying on the table. Perhaps hon. members would wish, for the sake of convenience, to have these communications printed as an appendix to today's Hansard, as was done with the previous correspondence.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreeable to hon. members that these letters should be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(For text of letters see appendix, pages 746-752.)


STATEMENT RESPECTING ORDERS IN COUNCIL PERMITTING ARMS SHIPMENTS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Eglinton asked me questions with respect to orders in council relating to the shipment of arms and war materials exported within the past year. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, on a question of privilege late Friday afternoon, explained that he had incorrectly referred to an order in council when what he really meant was a ministerial decision with respect to the issue of an export permit for the shipment of Harvard trainers to Egypt.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also explained that orders in council were required only in cases where a transfer or sale of government property is involved, other than property that has been declared surplus and transferred to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. These sales, when approved by the governor in council, are specifically authorized by section 11 of the National Defence Act if the materiel in question is not immediately required for the use of the Canadian forces, and the proceeds of such sale may be used to replace such materiel.
I have had all the orders in council since
January 1, 1955, relating to such transfers checked, and I wish now to comply with the request of the hon. member for Eglinton to give the dates of the orders in council and the countries concerned. There were 18 orders in council authorizing the transfer of mutual aid supplies to NATO countries, apart from amendments to previous orders that do not increase the quantities thereof; I assume the hon. member was not concerned with these and I have therefore not listed them. The others are as follows:
Date-1955 January 13 January 13 March 12 April 27
Country to which Sold India Bermuda United States Israel
Price $	79.80
500.00 350,000.00 632,191.00
These commodities shipped to Israel were part of those mentioned by the Secretary of

Inquiries of the Ministry State for External Affairs the other day in reporting	upon	shipments	to	the	Middle
East.
May 5	Israel	$ 492.00May 19	Belgium	12.72June 8	Israel	30,240.00July 14	United States	no chargeThis shipment to the United States was property	for	test purposes	valued	at approximately $500.September 1	United Kingdom	$ 61,650.00October 7	Israel	91,000.00October 19	Israel	10.00November 3	Denmark	505.85December 2	United States	no charge
This was property that had been on loan to the United States forces and which was valued when new at approximately $1,000.
December 14 Pakistan	$7,147.05
In fairness to the other countries involved in these transactions I feel it would not be proper to make these orders public, but I would be quite prepared to arrange to have them inspected in confidence by any hon. member.
I should add that other exports of arms and defence materiel, in addition to those covered by these orders, require export permits granted in accordance with the procedure outlined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. George A. Drew (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the
explanation given by the Prime Minister I should like to ask if he will indicate to us why orders so small in amount as $10 for the transmission of arms or equipment in particular cases require orders in council, and why the sale of 15 aircraft to Egypt in this case required no such formal order. There seems to be some need for a differentiation between the two cases.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, all transfers of military property require orders in council under the express terms of the National Defence Act. It is to comply with the express terms of the National Defence Act that there must be an order in council and there must be a decision that those items, whatever the amount may be, are not immediately required. The statute provides that they can then be transferred to another department for sale and that the proceeds of the sale can go into a special account under the consolidated revenue fund and may be used on requisition from the Minister of National Defence for replacement of what has thus been taken out of the stores of the Department of National Defence.
With respect to commercial transactions involving property that is not that of the government, the matter is governed by the

Export and Import Permits Act, which authorizes the Minister of Trade and Commerce to issue export permits, and those matters are dealt with in conformity with the terms of those two statutes in question.


George Alexander Drew: Simply to clarify the matter, Mr. Speaker, may I ask this question. In view of his explanation, when he states that this was not an order in council-which of course would be the decision of the government-but was a ministerial decision, may we take it that it was the decision of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: The final act was performed, as required by the statute, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The procedure preceding the final act performed by the Minister of Trade and Commerce was described by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech a week ago in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) a supplementary question arising from the interesting statement he made regarding the issuing of ministerial orders. I want to ask about the order on July 7 touching upon the matter of the export of the Harvard planes. Is the order after approval by the cabinet on that date sealed by the governor general or merely signed by the clerk of the privy council?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, it was
not an order signed by His Excellency the Governor General, and it was not an order of the cabinet. It was a ministerial decision taken in the manner described by the Secretary of State for External Affairs after consultations between the departments of external affairs, trade and commerce and national defence.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the cabinet approve of it after the ministerial recommendation?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No. The
cabinet is responsible for all these matters, but there was no express approval given by the cabinet as a whole.


John George Diefenbaker: Then is' this clear? This matter-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John George Diefenbaker: Is this clear, then, that the order permitting the export of these Harvard planes did not come before the cabinet on July 7 or in the latter part of June?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, it did
not come before the cabinet.


John George Diefenbaker: Then we have a revised version.



VIET NAM ARMISTICE AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister, either now or in his address later this afternoon, comment on the report that Britain and Russia have invited the views of ten other countries, including Canada, on ways of ensuring the fulfilment of the Viet Nam armistice agreement?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: The hon. member was good enough to give me notice of this question and I think probably it would be better if I dealt with it now. The reply is as follows.
In its fourth interim report the international supervisory commission in Viet Nam pointed out that the co-operation being extended by the parties to the commission was unsatisfactory. The commission asked the co-chairmen to consider this problem and the United Kingdom and Soviet foreign ministers, the two co-chairmen under the Geneva conference arrangement, have requested the views of the members of the Geneva conference and the commission powers on this somewhat difficult problem. So far as I know the Chinese reply is the first one to be made to the co-chairmen. I would expect that the co-chairmen would wish to wait until they had received replies from other governments before trying to decide what would be the right course of action to take in the circumstances.
Canada, of course, is not a member of the Geneva conference on Indo-China, but was invited at the end of it to serve on the international supervisory commissions together with India and Poland. Our position is therefore somewhat different from that of the members of the Geneva conference, but we are at the moment considering the views that we should send on this matter in reply to the letter from the co-chairmen. There may be an opportunity later in the session or before the committee on external affairs to make those views public.



SHIPMENT OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO SENSITIVE AREAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he has an
Inquiries of the Ministry answer ready to my question of six days ago concerning a shipment of military equipment to 34 sensitive areas.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker; I have been waiting for some time to answer this question-


Mr. Fulton:: Not as long as we have been waiting for the answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and will now do so after the intervention of the week end and a day. Some military equipment has been supplied to a number of politically sensitive areas during the last two years, but only after very careful examination in every case, and in accordance with the control procedures I outlined in my statement last Tuesday.
The total value of permits issued during those two years for the export of military equipment to all of the 34 areas, exclusive of the Middle East for which I have already given the figures, is about $2,249,000. More than half this amount represents defence equipment for commonwealth countries and colonial territories of the British Empire with which we have close and friendly relationships but which, because of threats to their security from outside their borders, we consider to be sensitive areas and therefore requiring careful consideration in respect of arms shipments. It would not be proper for me, Mr. Speaker, to disclose the names of the countries on this list because of the repercussions it might have on the position of friendly countries and their relations with us, and because it would reveal our confidential appraisal of the political and military situation in various parts of the world.
I shall, of course, be glad to disclose the list privately to any member of parliament and to give all details concerning it. Public disclosure, however, would be contrary to the public interest, as I am sure all hon. members will agree.



CANADIAN BREWERY ADVERTISING OVER UNITED STATES RADIO AND TELEVISION STATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister aware of the fact that Canadian brewery advertising beamed at Canadians is permitted over United States radio and television stations in some border cities? Will he consider drawing the attention of the United States authorities to the fact that this is contrary to our own C.B.C. code and in violation of some of our provincial statutes?	[DOT]

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into the matter.



THE VICTORIA CROSS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Hosking (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Is the government considering sending Canadian war heroes who have been awarded the Victoria Cross to England so they might accept the invitation of Her Majesty the Queen to be present at ceremonies in London next June to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the awarding of the Victoria Cross?


Hon. Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the intention of Her Majesty the Queen was made known to invite Canadian V.C. winners for the one hundredth anniversary celebration in England in June of this year, I instructed that a committee should be set up composed of personnel of the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs for the purpose of gathering all the information concerning these ceremonies. This committee is now sitting and obtaining this information. As soon as it is available the matter will be submitted to the cabinet.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May
I direct a question to the parliamentary assistant of the Minister of Fisheries, of which I have given him notice. Has any report been received from the international salmon commission meeting at Seattle a week ago which, according to the press, has recommended the closing of the strait of Juan de Fuca?


Mr. J. Watson MacNaughf (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Fisheries):: I made inquiries this morning, Mr. Speaker, and I was advised that the official report of the secretary of the last meeting of the commission held in Seattle has not yet been received.


George Randolph Pearkes: As a supplementary question, may I ask the parliamentary assistant to report to the house as soon as he does receive the report from the commission, in order to obviate the necessity of my repeating the question daily?


John Watson MacNaught: I assure the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich that as soon as the report has been received and digested a report will be made to the house.



INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED SALE TO POLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Would the minister comment on the week-end Canadian Press dispatch in connection with the sale of wheat to Poland? Would the minister indicate the number of bushels involved in this deal and how the amount compares with what was sold in 1955?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: It has been a well known rule of the department not to answer questions on current wheat transactions. My hon. friend could ask me today how many bushels we have sold to Poland, and tomorrow how many bushels we have sold to the United Kingdom, and following that how much to Germany, thus telling our competitors our exact position in every market, which obviously would destroy our ability to sell wheat.
However, there is a particular point in the sale to Poland. Although it was a cash sale so far as the board was concerned, it was insured for 85 per cent of its value by the Export Credits Insurance Corporation. The deal to which the hon. member refers is only one of several. It was for 100,000 tons of wheat and was completed yesterday.
There was a deal last summer in which 250,000 tons of wheat were sold to Poland, and that sale was also insured. There were several sales made for cash which I would not care to report to the House of Commons, in accordance with our usual custom. Each individual transaction is only one transaction. The relation between two transactions means nothing. Poland may come along and buy some more wheat for cash next month, and very likely will do so. I think I have given my hon. friend the information he is seeking.



REPORTED SALE BY UNITED STATES TO IRON CURTAIN COUNTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: As a supplementary question, is the Minister of Trade and Commerce aware that President Eisenhower has recommended that United States wheat be made available to communist countries, and has the President's proposal had any effect at all on sales of Canadian wheat?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am not aware of the fact that there is any news in the report that President Eisenhower plans to sell wheat to iron curtain countries. We are selling wheat to iron curtain countries. What is the significance of my hon. friend's question?



SIZE AND DISTRIBUTION OF DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, regarding the size and distribution of grain delivery quotas. Could the minister inform the house as to what progress is being made in raising the delivery quotas for grain? Also, when will sufficient box cars be available so that all points still on the initial quota can be given a quota of at least one bushel per specified acre?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Speaker, my department has prepared a detailed answer to that question.
Good progress is being made in increasing delivery quotas following the tight situation that existed last fall. This progress can be judged by comparing the delivery quota position as at December 1 and the position today. On December 1, the position was as follows:
Initial unit quota	 1,412 delivery points
One bushel per specified acre .	427	"	"Two bushels per specified acre	185	"	"Three bushels per specified acre	47	"	"
Today the over-all position is as follows:
Initial unit quota	 252 delivery points
One bushel per specified*acre .*	991	"	"Two bushels per specified acre	640	"	"Three bushels per specified acre	184	"	"
Hon. members will note that since the winter set in, exactly 1,160 delivery points have been moved from the initial unit quota basis to higher delivery quotas. On December 1 less than 32 per cent of delivery points in the prairie provinces were on a basis of general quotas of one, two, or three bushels per specified acre. Today close to 90 per cent of delivery points have a general quota of one, two, or three bushels per specified acre.
The general easing of delivery quotas since December 1 has enabled producers to deliver about 50 million bushels of grain. This has been accomplished without very much change in the space situation at either Fort William-Port Arthur or Vancouver. There is still a moderate amount of space at Pacific coast ports and a substantial amount of space at the lakehead available for country elevator shipments. This is the problem with which
Inquiries of the Ministry the railways are grappling. They not only want to fill available storage space at the Pacific coast and the lakehead, but also to supply the quantities of grain needed in these positions to look after current shipments.
During the last week carloadings by the two railways have averaged 867 cars per day. This is a distinct improvement, and I hope this improvement will continue. It must continue if we are going to meet our export commitments and fill space currently available at the lakehead and Vancouver by shipments from country points. It goes without saying that if the railways are successful in their present program of increasing grain shipments, no time will be lost in increasing delivery quotas at country points.
The board is continuously reviewing the quota position at the 252 points still on the initial unit basis. The board expects to get these points on a general quota basis at a very early date.



SUGGESTED NEW CONSTITUTIONAL STATUS OF PARLIAMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister, of which I gave him verbal notice yesterday. Is there an indication of a new constitutional status for parliament contained in the legend on the outside of a publication of the Department of Labour called Labour Publications, which describes itself as follows:
A price list of the publications of the Department of Labour and publications relating to labour issued by parliament and other agencies of the government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: They might as well be frank about it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am not a constitutionalist, Mr. Speaker. I have understood the government has sometimes been called an agency of parliament, but this is the first time that I have ever seen the reverse suggestion.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is an unfortunate error that was made in the title of the publication. It is a publication which contains the orders in council which were made under acts of parliament, and those are the papers referred to.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Can we be assured, then, that we are at least as high as the other agencies?

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS



INQUIRY AS TO RE-EMPLOYMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN NEWFOUNDLAND

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, or in his absence to the parliamentary assistant. Can the minister give any assurance that the 168 employees of the Canadian National Railways in Newfoundland who have received notice of termination of employment will be reemployed in some other capacity; and what rights have they regarding pension? I did not give notice, but the hon. member may take this as notice.


Mr. L. Langlois (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Transport):: May I take this question as notice?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister inform the house whether it is the government's intention to continue placing orders for the construction of CF-100 airplanes?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
was good enough to give me notice of this question. His question deals with the intentions of the government. I am sure my hon. friend is aware of the fact that the intentions of the government are not made known until policy based thereon is formulated and effect is given to those intentions. That is a time-honoured practice.


Colin Cameron: May I ask a
supplementary question? Can the minister inform the house whether it is true that the Royal Canadian Air Force is now fully equipped with those airplanes, and that any further production will have to be stockpiled?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The answer is no.



LONG BRANCH-INQUIRY RESPECTING DEMOLITION OF SHACKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Knight (Saskatoon):: Mr. Speaker, .here is another question, also on behalf of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Noseworthy), notice of which I think he had sent to the Minister of National Defence. The question was asked on January 25, and the answer was to be given on Friday or today.
[Mr. Macdonnell.l


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, on January 25 the hon. member for York South, whose absence because of illness I am sure we all regret, asked the following questions:
Has the Department of National Defence ever ordered the demolition of the shacks on its property at Long Branch, Toronto? If so, have these orders been carried out? If not, why not, and what use is now being made of these shacks?
I take it that the hon. member was referring to certain wartime buildings on the Long Branch rifle range property still being used as civilian emergency housing by the city of Toronto.
According to our records, the Department of National Defence has had no jurisdiction over these buildings since they were declared surplus in 1946-47, at which time the crown assets allocation committee allocated them to the department of reconstruction and supply to be made available to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for emergency shelter.
I am informed that shortly after that date the city of Toronto by arrangement with Central Mortgage and Housing took over the buildings, and I am further informed that the city of Toronto still holds them. In any event these buildings have not been under the jurisdiction or control of the Department of National Defence for almost 10 years; consequently the department has not ordered their demolition, nor has it in fact any right to do so.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance? May I ask whether the report of the Carter committee on the sales tax has been received? If so, when will it be available?


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have received the report. We are studying it now, and it may be that I shall table it on the occasion of the budget presentation.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: Mr. Speaker, my friend the hon. member for York South asked me if I could obtain today an answer from the Acting Minister of Public Works to a question of which my hon. friend had sent the minister notice.

Is it the policy of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to repossess the homes of men on strike at St. Catharines who, because of the strike, have been unable to meet their payments? If so, how many orders for repossession have already been issued?


Hon. Roch Pinard (Acting Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Public Works may I say that I already have some information, but I prefer to delay the answer until tomorrow in order to make it more complete. I will take this question as notice and try to get complete information for tomorrow.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Claude Ellis (Regina City):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Did the Postmaster General receive during the past month a resolution passed by the association of Canadian postal employees, Regina branch, protesting the liquidation of overtime accumulated during the Christmas rush? If so, what consideration has the department given to these representations?


Hugues Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, a number of representations have been received during the course of the last month. I might point out to my hon. friend that a similar question was put to me on January 20 and the answer appears in Hansard of that date.
At that time I pointed out that the method of compensating for overtime work in the Post Office Department was determined by an order in council which is applicable to employees in all departments, so it is not solely a question of post office regulations.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: On Friday last the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) asked if I would inform the house of the exact situation with respect to two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police whom he identified in his question. I think perhaps the most satisfactory way for me to do this is to remit to the Clerk of the house, pursuant to standing order 40, a full report which I received from the commissioner of the mounted police on August 25, 1955, concerning this matter.
67509-45J
Inquiries of the Ministry MEAT



INQUIRY RESPECTING PRICE SUPPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister inform the house what steps are being taken to bring beef prices under the Agricultural Prices Support Act in order to establish fair prices to the producers?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for having notified me of his question.
The fact is that the best prices that can be obtained for beef cattle, as far as we know, are to be obtained in the United States. There is no great difficulty in shipping cattle there, and we have always considered that price as being a suitable floor price for cattle from Canada. They can be shipped there at any time. We discussed that matter fully, a year ago, with the federation of agriculture, and when the federation made its requests at Edmonton in January of last year it omitted beef cattle from the list of products that should have support prices.



ALLEGED PURCHASE BELOW FLOOR PRICE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Bryson (Humboldi-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister account for the fact that grade A hogs have been purchased recently at stockyards in Saskatchewan at less than the government guaranteed floor price of $19 per hundred pounds?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member gave me notice of this question. I must say that I cannot agree that it is a fact. He asks:
Can the minister account for the fact that grade A hogs have been purchased recently at stockyards in Saskatchewan at less than the government guaranteed floor price of $19 per hundred pounds?
In the first place, there would be great difficulty in determining whether or not a hog purchased at the stockyard was a grade A hog. The grading is done when the hogs are hung up after having been slaughtered. So an individual might question whether he received the right price at the stockyard for a hog, but if he does question it all that involves is that the hog is purchased subject to grade when the hog is hung up. Under those circumstances he would be paid for grade A, no matter what price he was offered at the stockyards.
There is, of course, a possibility of one individual selling a hog to another. It might

Inquiries of the Ministry be sold to a butcher, or to someone else. There might be some question in the mind of the person selling it as to whether he had obtained the price for the hog at the grade he thought it might reach if it went to some plant, but if it can be established that a hog is grade A the floor price is there for him to obtain any time he wishes. Provision is made at all the markets in Saskatchewan for the purchase to be made at the floor.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the minister that these hogs were purchased at less-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hugh Alexander Bryson: I have a receipt here that I should be glad to show the minister to prove it.


Edward George McCullough: should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a supplementary question. When, as the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort indicates, the producer does get a lesser price than the floor price established at the yards-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member be good enough to put his question.


Edward George McCullough: My
question is, what procedure does the farmer follow to recover his loss when he has received less than the floor price for his hogs?


James Garfield Gardiner: When the hogs are graded at the packing plant the government pays a premium on grade B hogs, and it pays a higher premium on grade A hogs. Therefore all these certificates eventually pass government graders or the individual does not receive his premium. In any case where the matter is brought to the attention of the Department of Agriculture the officials see to it that the proper price is paid and, of course, the farmer will not settle until he gets his premium and all the rest of it. That is all checked. The proper procedure is for the farmer or anyone receiving the certificate from the farmer to immediately send it to the prices board.
[Later: ]


Hugh Alexander Bryson: Now that the Minister of Agriculture has had an opportunity to look at the document to which I referred, has he any explanation to offer?


James Garfield Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it would appear from this slip-I am not too sure that I can read the figures on it after the handling it has had-that there is a possibility the figure for the A grade is $18.75 and for the B1 grade $17.75. If those are the actual prices that were received I think they would be 25 cents under the floor, in both cases. The

fact remains, however, that there must have been some difference of opinion between the individual who shipped the hogs and the buyer at the stockyard as to grade, and all my hon. friend or any other person in that position need do is send the slip to the Department of Agriculture and it will be dealt with at once.


An hon. Member:: You have it now.


James Garfield Gardiner: It could have been done much quicker and the man could have had his money much sooner if it had been properly done. This matter is simply brought here for the purpose of trying to make political capital out of it. If my hon. friend or any other member of the C.C.F. party wishes to get a settlement for a farmer in connection with any such matter, all he need do is to send the slip to the department and the matter will be settled in short order.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Are the report's correct that shortly there will be a general increase in civil servants' salaries? Will the government at the same time increase the pensions of retired civil servants, particularly those in the lower and middle brackets?


Walter Edward Harris: As usual, the Minister of Finance and his
department are considering the wage scales of the civil service. We have been doing so for some time and will continue to do so until we reach a decision, which will be announced in the house if the house is sitting.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister answer my second question?


Walter Edward Harris: I answered it last week, but if the hon. member wants another answer the answer is the same this week.



CANVAS SHOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Hodgson (Victoria, Oni.):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of National Revenue. It has reference to an article in last night's paper indicating that a firm in Kitchener is closing down and going

out of business on account of the dumping of canvas shoes in Canada. In view of the fact that the government is acquainted with what the situation was last year, and the increased dumping this year is 126 per cent over last year; in view of the fact that these shoes are made by cheap labour in Hong Kong-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: -what is the government going to do about it?



QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ON THE ORDERS OE THE DAY

Mr. Speaker:: Now that the house is in a very good mood, may I be permitted to point out that the rules regarding the asking of oral questions on the orders of the day are exactly the same as those which apply to questions asked on the order paper after notice. May I ask hon. members to look periodically-in fact, I would say every day-at citation 295 of Beauchesne, third edition, which gives a list of the type of questions which my predecessors have ruled out of order from time to time over the years. Many interesting examples are given which are very much to the point. I would ask hon. members, and members of the cabinet as well, to look at the list; and I would urge hon. members not to ask this type of question, and I would ask the ministers not to answer this type of question.



WAYS AND MEANS

["The items under private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will resume consideration of the business that was interrupted at five o'clock."]
Lester Bowles Pearson: that Mr. Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of ways and means.



Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this motion will give the house an opportunity to discuss international affairs, and it gives me the privilege of introducing that discussion. I realize that in the time I can appropriately take in a debate of this kind there will be many important questions in international affairs with which I will not be able to deal. I hope, however, that when the time comes for me to close the discussion I will be able to answer questions that may be raised subsequently and which I have not dealt with in my opening statement.
One subject I will not touch on in this speech, because I attempted to deal with it last week in the debate on the address, is Middle East policy. If any questions are raised in this debate dealing with the policy that should be followed in that area in the
External Affairs
preservation of peace-and, after all, that is the thing that matters-or in respect of the administration of that policy, I would hope to deal with them again when I wind up the debate.
I will also not be able, in this discussion, to touch on the work of the United Nations or more particularly the work of the recent United Nations assembly. I hope there will be an opportunity before long for my hon. friend the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), to deal with the work of that assembly to which, if I may say so, he made such a distinguished and constructive contribution.
I would also have liked to report in some detail, and I hope to do so as soon as possible when the opportunity presents itself, either here or in the committee on external affairs, on the recent ministerial meeting of the Colombo plan countries at Singapore. It was a most successful and inspiring meeting, a meeting of especial significance because it was held in a colony now on the threshold of self-government, a secure freedom and a selfgovernment achieved by evolution which would have been impossible under a communist form of government, which makes some of the allegations of recent communist travellers in that part of the world sound pretty ridiculous.
After that conference in Singapore I had the privilege of seeing the Colombo plan in action in India and in Pakistan, where my colleagues and myself were received by the governments of those two countries with very great kindness and were given a very sincere welcome.
After this opportunity of seeing it in action I returned more convinced than ever of the value of the Colombo plan based on friendly co-operation without political pressure and justified now by performance. Promises are no longer needed for that purpose. It will have been noticed by the house that the government intends to recommend to parliament a substantial increase this year in our contribution to the Colombo plan, namely an increase of almost 33J per cent. That increase will not quite meet the figure advocated last year by my friend the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who had urged us to double our contribution, but it is a substantial increase and I hope it will be voted by parliament.
I should also, Mr. Speaker, say at least a word about the work of the armistice commissions in Indo-China, which was referred to earlier in the sitting this afternoon. In that area of the world Canadians continue to make an important contribution to peace

External Affairs
through their work with these commissions. Our men-there are some 170 of them in that area, mostly from the Department of National Defence, members of the armed forces-have discharged their extremely difficult and trying duties with great credit to themselves and to their country. In one of the countries there, namely Cambodia, we have reached the winding-up stage of the commission, and we have been able to reduce the strength of that commission. Elections have been held in that country, and as a result the commission and its members can leave Cambodia with the satisfaction which they must feel at the stability which has been achieved in a country so recently a victim of war.
In Laos, one of the other countries, the situation is not so good. Elections have also been held there, but the communist Pathet Lao forces, which are grouped in the northern provinces of that country, have refused to accept the Laotian government or the authority of that government and to take part in the election. Hence no reduction there has been found possible either in the numbers of the commission or in its activities up to the present time.
So far as Viet Nam is concerned-and that is probably the most important of the three countries-the military phases of the armistice work have been completed and with little disturbance. I think the commission deserves a good deal of credit for that result. The political aspects, however, present a less satisfactory picture. Little progress has been made in that country toward the national elections visualized by the Geneva conference, and which are scheduled to take place in July of this year. If they do not take place it is hard to say what effect that failure will have on our obligations in the commission.
This work in Indo-China is arduous and difficult, as I have said, and it imposes a heavy burden on the armed forces of our country and upon the Department of External Affairs. We are most anxious to complete it at the earliest possible date. Nevertheless we shall not abandon that work so long as we are convinced that it is making an important contribution to peace.
I should also, Mr. Speaker, say a word about a problem which is very much in our mind these days, namely that of the legal recognition of the communist Chinese government in Peking. One of the most difficult questions which face this country and many other countries is that of determining our relations with the two rival and bitterly hostile governments of China. It is not as simple an issue to decide as some seem to
FMr. Pearson.]
think. There is more than one factor to take into account before any decisions can wisely be taken. Such a decision requires a careful balancing of many national and international factors, moral, political and economic.
Some time ago, Mr. Speaker-indeed, last summer-I expressed the view that we should have another look at this question in the light of the cessation of hostilities in Korea and in Indo-China, in the light of the situation in and around the Formosa straits and in the light of the recent policy of the Peking government in so far as it is possible to determine it. We have made this reexamination and we feel that the careful policy we have been following, and are still following, has been the right one; rejecting on the one hand immediate diplomatic recognition but rejecting on the other hand the view that a communist regime in Peking can never be recognized as the government of China.
The arguments for and against recognition of this government have more than once been discussed, and in detail, in this house, and I do not intend to repeat them at this time. I wish merely to state as briefly as possible the considerations which determine our policy as a government in this matter.
The first consideration is the interest of our country, remembering that the paramount interest of us all is international peace and security. In addition, we are obliged to give consideration to the interests and views of our friends and allies, some of whom are even more directly involved than are we in the consequences of diplomatic recognition. It is also important, Mr. Speaker, not to confuse recognition with approval. There are, of course, moral considerations involved and, in the case of a ruthless communist regime, these considerations inevitably must have a bearing on our attitude. But the decision remains predominantly a political one to be taken on the basis of enlightened self-interest, as in many other cases where we have recognized totalitarian regimes.
It should not, however, be assumed that Canadian recognition of the Peking government-even if it were to be granted at some time in the future-would extend to the island of Formosa. As we see it, the legal status of Formosa is still undecided and no step taken vis-a-vis the communist regime should prejudice that issue. In particular, we would not be a party to any action which handed over the people or the government on Formosa, against their will, to any mainland government, let alone to a communist Chinese government.
We condemn the cruelties and tyrannies of the Peking regime, and we continue to hope

that the Chinese people will one day be governed by a more enlightened government of their own choice.
But, Mr. Speaker, we must accept the fact of communist control of mainland China. That is one thing we cannot fail to recognize, with the corollary that in certain circumstances and in our own interests we may be obliged to deal-as we already have been obliged to do-at Geneva and elsewhere with that government in respect of certain problems which cannot be solved without it. Nor should we, I suggest, base our policy on the likelihood of the nationalist government of Chiang Kai-shek returning to power on the mainland. Furthermore, the anomaly of that government representing China at the United Nations, with a veto that can block any action desired by 52 other members, is becoming increasingly apparent. I believe also that we should accept no commitment to intervene on behalf of the nationalist government in the struggle for the Chinese offshore islands. Our view on this matter has already been made clear in this house, outside this house and in the United States.
As for Formosa, the only commitment-and this also has been stated in the house- we have is that which might arise out of our obligations under the charter of the United Nations. So far as diplomatic recognition is concerned, we should from time to time review the position in the light of conditions; of our own interests and of the views of our friends and allies. However, I believe we should not get ourselves into such an inflexible position that a change in policy, if it were considered to be wise and necessary, could be brought about only with maximum difficulty.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to express one further thought on this subject. We are all concerned, and rightly so, that the utmost in good judgment be applied to this complicated and controversial problem of legal recognition. As I see it, however, we must not let it distract us so much that we ignore the longer term issues which are raised by communist China's emergence as a new and powerful force in the world. The consolidation and growth of Chinese power under communist rule which is now taking place may be historically as important an event as the Russian revolution of 1917. The implications for us in China's determined drive to achieve military and industrial might and a position as a world power may be as far reaching as similar developments which have taken place in Russia. Indeed, one day in the future these two revolutionary forces may clash. It may now seem to us to be of great importance to recognize or not to recognize
External Affairs
the communist regime in Peking. It is of far greater importance to recognize that a revolution of cataclysmic force has taken place in China as a fateful part of the emergence of a modern awakened Asia. [DOT]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like for a few moments to make a report, if I may call it that-and I am afraid it will not be a very adequate one because of considerations of time-on my recent visit to the Soviet union. You will remember that this visit, and it was an encouraging thought for me, was made with the approval of all parties in this House of Commons. I am quite aware of the fact, as I have said before, that one can acquire in a brief official visit only impressions. Those impressions can be misleading, but they can be valuable as a check on studies that have already been made, and as a check on the experiences of others. They can also be valuable if your visit brings you into contact, as mine did, with the top rulers of the country. Therefore it may be that the impressions I brought back, though I give them without any feeling of certainty or dogmatism, may be of some value.
So far as the people of this powerful country are concerned, they showed us a hospitality, a kindness and courtesy which I have great pleasure in acknowledging. This, of course, reflected the traditional hospitality and kindness of the Russian people, and it has little, if anything, to do with their form of government. They seemed, in so far as we were able to determine it, to have a pride in the achievements of their state. They seemed to have a fear of war, and there is no reason why the people of that country should not have a fear of war. No other people in the world have suffered more from war than they have. But they also seem to have an ignorance of the world outside which is frightening indeed.
One gets the impression also that there has been a relaxation of tension inside the country. The long-range importance of that may be considerable. It is true that that kind of relaxation can be turned on and off easily by the governing group, even by an editorial in Pravda. It would be unwise, therefore, to draw any far-reaching conclusions from such a development. I had an abiding impression when I left of great strength, great power, great richness, a state of collective power and collective riches alongside individual deprivations. But I think it is correct to say that the latter is decreasing, and bread and circuses are increasing. I think it is also right to say that the former, the collective power, is also increasing. We would be making a great mistake if we underrated that development.

External Affairs
That country, Mr. Speaker, is harnessing education and science, propaganda and power to communist imperialism.
The Russian regime, which embodies this communist imperialism, is achieving a strength, a solidity, a dynamism that is impressive-indeed, it is frightening. Their plans to increase this are even more impressive. Let us not deceive ourselves, if anyone still does, by thinking that they are a beaten, lifeless people in an ox-cart civilization. It is true that many of the comforts to which we are accustomed are missing, but this does not seem to either weaken or worry them. To them plumbing is not as important as plutonium; ease is not as important as engineering; man is only material for management. There is no obvious sign, Mr. Speaker, that they resent these things. Those who do, no doubt, are in jail or in concentration camps.
So far as the government of the country is concerned, as the house knows, one man has now been succeeded by a group. Of that group, two men seem to be in the ascendancy, two men who are in startling contrast to each other in so many ways but who seem to work very closely together indeed. These two men in the conversations I had with them profess, and I underline the word "profess" because it has sometimes been left out of the reports which have been previously ascribed to me on this matter, to have no other desire than peace and further relaxation of tension.
Indeed on this trip, Mr. Speaker, we heard much talk about peace. It was the first Russian word I learned, and it was the last one I heard as we took off from the Crimean airport. This peace talk, this peace cry, may well be genuine when it is uttered by the people, but that is not important unless it can influence the policies of the leaders of the people and there is not so much evidence of that. Mr. Khrushchev's idea of peace, and he made no secret about it when he talked with me, is illustrated by his determination to break up NATO as an aggressive organization, so he claimed, aimed at Russia and therefore a threat to peace. I, of course, argued with him long and loudly on this matter, but I have some doubt whether I made very much impression.
I feel, however, that he wishes to break up NATO primarily because, in his professed view, it is an agency of aggressive United States policy. The United States is the culprit. Similarly with Germany; he fears it I believe chiefly as a member of NATO and as such, in his view, an agent of the United States. He was not interested in my argument that a Germany armed and outside NATO might be a far greater danger to the

Soviet union than a Germany that was one of 15 countries, with limited arms and under collective control inside NATO. Mr. Khrushchev also seemed worried that the Russian initiative, as he would put it, in relaxing tension might be interpreted in the west as a sign of weakness or even of crisis at home. He frankly admitted they were having difficulties, especially in agricultural production, but he became almost violent in denying any weakness or any crisis.
He went on to assure me that the Soviet union was never stronger, and if anyone dared to begin a war with them the Russians would finish it. He talks with an easy assurance on these matters that amounts almost to arrogance. My own view for what it is worth is that the leaders of the Soviet union do want what I call a peaceful interlude, and for a variety of reasons. Among others, as Mr. Khrushchev has candidly admitted, in a more peaceful atmosphere the democracies-he thinks their people are soft and undisciplined, that freedom is licence and will be their undoing-will not accept the sacrifices that prolonged defence preparations involve and will fall apart in their coalitions, especially in NATO.
Communists, he assured me, could stand up to effort and sacrifice far better than we could. They were tougher and more patient, and therefore communism would be superior to capitalism in peaceful but competitive coexistence. He was supremely confident, and expressed that confidence on a good many occasions, that communism will conquer in this kind of competition.
Our hosts, Mr. Speaker, expressed a very high regard for Canada. Those expressions may have been more calculated than spontaneous; nevertheless I think they have a real respect for our country, not only because of our efforts and sacrifices in war, but also because we have tried to be objective and internationally useful in peace and are nobody's tool. They are, of course, pretty obvious in their efforts to distinguish us and ultimately detach us from our southern neighbour, and their insistence that we have a northern neighbour as well was not as reassuring, at least to me, as they tried to make it sound. But when I emphasized, as I did, the bonds of friendship between the United States and Canada, or tried to say a good word for the United States, they at least listened politely. Similarly when we opposed certain of their suggestions, as we had to do, that the trade treaty which we were discussing should be concluded at once in Moscow, or that certain phrases or ideas should be included in the communique which

we thought might be misinterpreted in Canada-when we took that position of opposition they took it in good part and did not press us too hard.
I think the visit was worth while for us who were privileged to undertake it. Apart from any concrete advantages that may possibly arise out of it in the way of trade, or in the way of scientific and technical exchanges, or in getting information out of Russia in regard to relatives of Canadians, in addition to those concrete advantages if they should come about I think as the result of a visit of this kind one is in a better position to appreciate and understand the sources of soviet power and the nature of soviet policy.
Whatever was gained in this respect was accomplished, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, without misleading them as to the views and policies of Canada and her friends. Indeed, having heard from Mr. Khrushchev soviet views stated with great force and with great frankness, I was encouraged to reply in kind. They may not, as I have said, have made much of an impression on him or on his colleagues; but at least they know, I hope, a little more about our views; that the west, in the United Nations or in NATO, is not and will not become aggressive or warmongering and is as vitally concerned, as they told me they were, with peace, security and the removal of causes of war. I hope they realize also that I was right when I said we were not going to throw away NATO merely because of doses, large or small, of the Geneva spirit.
Mention of the Geneva spirit brings me to the question, where are we today in respect of the relaxation of tension which we hoped had been initiated at the Geneva conference last July, and which we hoped would continue and indeed would show concrete results in policy. Hon. members will recall the feeling of optimism that was developed at the summit meeting, as it is now called, at Geneva last summer. It may well be that hopes at that time were too high and that thinking was too wishful. I remember, along with others, taking that view in this house in the discussion we had on July 23 last year. At that time I, along with a good many others, felt that the real test of the reality and importance of the Geneva spirit was to be the foreign ministers' meeting which was called for November in an effort to achieve some of the objectives of the summit meeting.
We now know that the result of that November meeting was almost 100 per cent negative. We learned at that time that soviet words differed from soviet deeds, and that soviet tactics were not the same as soviet policy. As hon. members will recall, as a result of that foreign ministers' meeting in 67509-46
External Affairs
Geneva in November, not a single basic objective of soviet policy was changed.
What are those objectives? I believe myself, Mr. Speaker, that the fundamental objective of soviet policy, the long-range one, is security for the Soviet union and the triumph of communist ideology in a world of communist states controlled and dominated by Moscow, I believe this objective remains unaffected either by relaxation or by increases of tension. The cold war in that sense goes on, and I suggest it is misleading to think of the cold war in any other terms.
This was very well put in an editorial in The Economist magazine last November, which reads:
"Cold war" is an even more misleading phrase than most of the monosyllabic slogans that headline writers love. It is commonly identified with such rudeness and crudeness as the Russians practised until lately. For those who make this over-simple identification, the "cold war" presumably ended when Vishinsky's diatribes gave place to Mr. Khrushchev's waggery, . . . "Cold war" in that sense need not now return, and it probably will not . . . But the phrase "cold war" was originally coined with reference not to a form of etiquette but to a policy-the policy of "struggle", to borrow a communist keyword. This "struggle" is basically a contest for power over men's minds, a political contest in which economic and military pressures are auxiliary. The "cold war" in this deeper sense never ended, and can never end while the communist rulers cling to their aim of worldwide victory. All that can change is the tactics employed, both by them and by the nations that are ready to defend their liberty.
These, Mr. Speaker, are very wise words indeed. But tactics, even on this interpretation of soviet policy, have changed, and in one sense at least I think the change of tactics has effected a change of strategy, and in a sense that is very important indeed.
I believe myself, and I share that belief, of course, with many others, that the deterrent effect of the hydrogen bomb is now recognized in Moscow. It is now admitted there as in other places that hydrogen warfare means universal destruction, and it is now accepted in Moscow, as in other places, that a balance of terror has been achieved. No one, however, can take much comfort out of it as a solid foundation of peace.
I think, as I said a few moments ago, that the soviet leaders do want peace in the sense that they do not want atomic warfare, and that they will not deliberately provoke or risk that kind of war with the certainty of mutual destruction. Yet I add that in my view their policy is still conflict short of war that is what they mean, surely, by competitive coexistence; not friendly cooperation.
It is always wise, Mr. Speaker, to go to the soviet leaders' own words to get inside their

External Affairs
is one of manoeuvre and contact, of trying everything that may help their cause; of smiles and scowls, of kicks and carrots. These tactics may be more dangerous and difficult to deal with than any ever employed by Stalin. They are certainly more complex. But at any rate, in the long run, they may offer some possibilities for negotiation and settlement. To meet them and to bring about that negotiation and settlement to which we would all give first place in our efforts, requires flexibility and imagination on our part. As "our" refers to a coalition of free states, with a cherished freedom even to differ, this is going to be difficult to combine with unity of purpose and co-ordination of methods.
We must, then, develop an imaginative yet realistic diplomacy, one based on a clear and unclouded understanding of the intentions and methods of the Soviet union and its satellites and of their strengths and weaknesses; one based also on a staunch adherence to our own policies and principles.
There is now less reason for complacency on our part than ever, for the threat to the institutions and the society of the free world remains as strong as ever. There is, however, no reason for despair merely because Mr. Molotov said "Nyet" at Geneva and because Mr. Bulganin and Mr. Khrushchev continue to level harsh and unfounded accusations at the western powers, mixed with honeyed words and offers of peace pacts. The latest of these offers was made the other day to the government of the United States through a message from Mr. Bulganin to President Eisenhower. I feel that I am voicing the impressions of most members of this house, though I know I should speak only for myself, when I say that I have read with admiration and respect the reply of the President of the United States to that offer. It was constructive, not negative, and it was the sort of attitude that in a matter of this kind I am sure this government would be happy to support.
I have already mentioned the feeling of confidence and self-assurance of the Soviet leaders. If on our part we can show strength, steadiness and unity-a strength which is more than military, a steadiness which is not indifference and a unity which is based on common ideals and which requires careful and continuous fostering-we shall prove the communists wrong in their assurance that the future belongs to them.
If we do not, we shall have only ourselves to blame.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister, with the background of the experience gained in consequence of his visit to the Soviet union and other parts
IMr. Pearson.]
of the world, has given us today the psychological reaction to the reception he received and the interviews he had with the leaders of those countries. He seems, however, to have departed somewhat from the unusually warm words that he expressed on the conclusion of his tour, in the remarks he made today. It was reported in the press at the time that he said:
I view these men as a group of strong, able men-
That is referring to the leaders in the Soviet union.
-with no other desire than to be left In peace to build their country and solve their domestic problems, of which they admit they have many-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hate to interrupt the hon. member, but at the time that statement appeared in the press I denied I had said that. I also mentioned the matter this afternoon. The radio recording of the interview will show quite conclusively that the word "professed", which is a very important one, was put in that statement.


John George Diefenbaker: I can understand the applause with which that statement is received. As a matter of fact, if my hon. friend says he denied the statement the publicity given to the denial never caught up with the publicity given to the words that he allegedly said.


An hon. Member:: It never does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: We listened with a good deal of composure when my hon. friend was speaking. Surely we are not going to depart from the attitude adopted in the past of endeavouring to discuss these issues in a manner befitting their seriousness. Today, sir, we have the minister again facing reality, if at any time the red carpet of welcome caused any distortion in objectivity during the course of his visit. The big problem the free nations of the world have to face is this: Is the change since the Geneva conference a new look? Is it reality or is it a mirage? Is it a change in manner or a change in matter? That to me represents in summary the problem that faces us today.
The minister referred particularly to the words of Khrushchev in connection with the shrimp whistling, and in listening to the minister I thought of history itself. A reading of recent history shows that on every occasion that the U.S.S.R. has ceased to be openly aggressive time was being bought for a purpose favourable to the U.S.S.R. I go back to 1921 to a book by Mikkail Frunske which is still standard in all military academies. In it he said that the general purpose and aim

of the policies of the U.S.S.R. are that a death struggle with the western democracies is inevitable. In 1917, after the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the foreign minister of the U.S.S.R. said: "We entered into that agreement. We never intended to keep it. We were simply buying time for a breathing spell."
The minister mentioned one of the latest actions on the part of the U.S.S.R., the offer of a 20-year treaty of friendship pact with the United States, a simple scheme designed to drive a wedge between the United Kingdom and the commonwealth on the one hand and the United States on the other. The friendly letter received by President Eisenhower from the communist leader is not in keeping with the unfriendly and provocative actions of the U.S.S.R. during recent weeks. In particular I refer to the speeches delivered by the communist leaders during their recent trip to India and eastern Asia.
The minister has stated that what is needed today is a realization of the unity of the free nations and an intensification of that unity. He mentioned the United States. I intended to quote an editorial from Sunday's New York Times, I believe, where, dealing with the present visit of Sir Anthony Eden to the President of the United States the New York Times makes it perfectly clear that there will be no freedom, no security, no salvation from the onrush of communism if at any time the United Kingdom and the commonwealth and the United States follow different courses of action or cease to be united in their common crusade.
This is not the first time that the U.S.S.R. has offered a non-aggression pact such as it offers the United States. It did the same in the Balkan states. It did the same with Finland. One thing I thought the minister might mention was the visit to Ottawa next Monday of Sir Anthony Eden who will be given a reception in our country, as he is receiving today in the United States, a reception in keeping with the magnificent contribution he and those associated with him are making to the preservation of world peace today.
The minister revealed some of his impressions, and I think that we in the various parties in the house who suggested that he should visit the U.S.S.R. have reason to be pleased that he did and that he has brought back to us that reaction which only the intimacy of personal intercourse can bring about. I am going to suggest, having regard to the experience some of us had last summer in visiting the NATO representatives of other countries and also having regard to the experience of the minister himself, that we in
External Affairs
Canada should follow somewhat the same system followed by the congress of the United States, to make opportunities available for members of the Canadian Senate and House of Commons to visit the U.S.S.R. and there learn something at first hand of the situation in that country and of the attitude taken by the U.S.S.R.
To bring together representatives produces results. The agriculturists from the U.S.S.R., who recently visited North America and on occasion received a welcome not in keeping with our democratic way of life, had nothing adverse to say about our countries in their report on their return to Russia. Indeed, there is the highest commendation of the manner in which we discharge our responsibilities to our agricultural economy. While the U.S.S.R. originally made the offer suggesting exchanges in a manner that is not in keeping with our parliamentary way of invitation, I think that in the interests of all the government of this country through you, Your Honour, should make available in clear-cut terms an invitation to the U.S.S.R. to send representatives to our country.
I know that there has been ridicule of such visits._ There were some who said: What are we going to do when we go to visit the NATO parliamentary association? I can say that those who were there came back with a new realization of the need of maintaining and expanding NATO. They came back with a new appreciation of world events in general. They sat in conference with representatives of 14 other NATO nations, and we saw there on two occasions an answer to those who say that there is a finality in history. One of the most impressive was at the NATO parliamentary conference. France demanded that the nations represented at that conference should be listed on the basis of the French names of their countries, thereby placing Germany or Allemagne in the position of being No. 1. Here I wish to pay tribute to the president of that organization, Senator Robertson of our own country, whose contribution in bringing the parliamentarians together is worthy of commendation from all of us. Imagine this. After two world wars, after all the antipathies and animosities of a thousand years, in a few short months after the inclusion of West Germany in the NATO organization, the representatives from France, in compassion and in a desire to bind the wounds of war and abate the hatreds of generations, made that request. Who would have believed that possible five years ago or even three years ago?
I saw something else. It was something that recalled to memory where we were in West Germany, in that area of Alsace-Lorraine which for generations has been the

External Affairs
way of marching armies. The representative forces of the Canadian army put on that magnificent drama, as I call it, the retreat ceremony. Taking part were representatives of the Royal 22nd regiment and two other Canadian regiments. Their respective bands performed at the ceremony. At the conclusion of that retreat ceremony "God save the Queen" was played, then "The Marseillaise," and the officers came to the salute. Then the German national anthem was played and the Canadian officers followed suit. They came to the salute in an area where there are graves that will be unforgotten for all generations. They came to the salute, thus indicating that history is not finality and that as the pages turn, changes take place.
I went into East Germany. I visited West Germany. I saw West Berlin and I am going to make just passing reference to what I saw because the minister stated that the mass of propaganda of the U.S.S.R. is designed to control the hearts and the minds of men. As you go into Berlin

that island of freedom, to use the words of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew) on one occasion -you find that West Berlin is lit up. East Berlin is dark with the exception of one street, the show street, Stalin Allee, where live in fear the dictators of communism. You met the mayor and the people. They stood there as the bulwarks of freedom. They could be overrun at any time but they have stood their ground. Then you go to East Berlin. I had no idea of the propaganda that goes on. Wherever a person goes he is facing a propaganda message. The walls of all the buildings have on them messages such as these: We demand the outlawing of all atomic weapons; fight in resistance to the Paris treaties; protect the accomplishments of the people; fight for the rebuilding of Germany as a peace-loving democratic state; workers in city and country be prepared to arm for the defence of our homeland; all Germans with their feet under the same table. These slogans are the kind that have been designed to influence the thinking of the people. They ask for unification. The mayor of West Berlin, Herr Otto Suhr, stated that unless there is unification under a system of free elections there can never be peace in Europe. The U.S.S.R. promises hopefully that there will be unification and goes its way raising East Germany to a position of equality under the Warsaw pact, demanding at all times that Canada, Great Britain, the United States and the other nations that have representatives in West Berlin shall recognize the authority of that government by allowing that government to sign the necessary authority for them to go into East Germany.

I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, before I come to controversial things. One of the most impressive things that faces a Canadian as he goes through Europe and visits the Canadian embassies is the high quality of the Canadian representatives there. Without separating him from the rest, I mention particularly Mr. Keith, the head of the military mission in West Germany. It was obvious that he was a man who enjoyed the right of entry at any time to any of the representatives of the other countries, not only because of his official position but also because of his unusual ability and his unusual insight into external affairs.
Having said that, I come to something else. When you speak to people in East Berlin, you find that they would like to be joined together. You see the difference in economic conditions. I say through you, sir, to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) that butter prices there are interesting. In West Berlin butter is 72 cents a pound and in East Berlin it is $4.80 a pound. One reason for that situation is the different standard with regard to currency. But more particularly the reason is this. Under communism agriculture has been destroyed. My hon. friend stated that the U.S.S.R. wants to pick off the cream, in effect, under any system of reorganization or system of unification. That is obvious in East Germany. There the U.S.S.R. picks off the top of everything that the farmer grows. The result is a failure in agriculture that is apparent on every hand. That is one of the reasons that during the next five years the U.S.S.R., under its new agricultural policy, intends to put into crop some 75 million acres more than have previously been planted.
What is the attitude of the U.S.S.R.? Is it desirous of peace? The events of the past give no such indication. The minister stated that those high in authority in the U.S.S.R. know the danger today of the hydrogen bomb. I believe that is so. As a matter of fact, the hydrogen bomb has created equality in military preparedness today and, in my opinion, in large measure accounts for the tremendous change in objective on the part of the U.S.S.R. since the summit conference in the summer of 1955. They realize today that they are not going to overrun the world by force and they now resort to this new plan of economic infiltration, the handing out of promises, the dangling of promises before the eyes of peoples less highly developed economically than are we. They offer to India several hundreds of millions of dollars for dams, steel mills and the like; to Egypt one-half a billion dollars for the building of a dam. To other countries there have been promises of a similar nature.

71S
My hon. friend says that Canada has increased her contribution to the Colombo plan. It is true that she has increased her contribution but it is a small increase having regard to the change in strategy on the part of the U.S.S.R. I refer to this change from reliance on the force of arms to reliance on the power of economic infiltration and the dangling of promises. As a matter of fact, having regard to the five-year plan that was recently enunciated by the U.S.S.R., I think that a form of economic blackmail is to be the policy of the U.S.S.R. during the next five years. They will make promises. They are buying surplus products from Burma. They are extending economic assistance to various countries. They do not intend to go to war, that is to hot war. They realize the fabulous dangers that they face. Now, they are proceeding on what they call a five-year plan designed, to use the words of Molotov, to change over as painlessly as possible to communism in the world. In other words, as Khrushchev once said, the danger is capitalism, and that sums up the plan today.
There is this economic change. Steel production and coal production are being expanded; hydro power is being doubled and heavy industry is being expanded as never before. They have nothing to worry about so far as the costs of production are concerned because they have a police state. They can maintain whatever level of wages they choose. This new policy has all the appearance of a vast economic war which we in the industrial nations still face as a potential danger. We in the agricultural nations, faced with this expansion in agricultural development, will find that the competition we have today will be regarded as nothing beside that which we will face in the future.
As a result of this economic plan on a large scale the western world today meets a challenge from the U.S.S.R. in this new policy of maintaining peace. Russia is putting the western nations in a challenging position by failing to go to war, by fomenting trouble, by extending economic aid, by forcing them to compete with the promises of economic aid given by the U.S.S.R., thereby endangering ourselves if we endeavour to equal in reality the promises of the U.S.S.R. Each of these countries, Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, united the other day under the Warsaw pact agreement, is building vast economic developments so they will be in a position to challenge the economic magnitude of the United States, Britain and the other countries of the commonwealth and the free nations. In other words, today the free nations are going through a form of international brainwashing.
External Affairs
Some time ago a Pole was describing the brainwashing through which he had gone. He said it consisted of sweet talk accompanied by promises of concessions. Day after day different concessions are promised until finallj the individual becomes a neurotic wreck Postponing a performance always ends in uncertainties, and the dangling of hope destroys the power of the individual to resist Is that what the U.S.S.R. is trying to dc today by promises to Asia and to Africa, as well as to the other parts of the world? Is she trying, by handing out hopeless promises, to destroy the resistance of these nations whc today find themselves economically in a position of semi-destitution, in some cases ol almost complete destitution?
It is for that reason that more than ever ] should like to see the NATO nations give greater attention to article 2 of the NATO agreement. In this way the free nations might join in multilateral trade and remove many of those tariffs that are unjust, unfair and unjustifiable in the world in which we live, to the end that the NATO nations and other free nations will be able to take their stand against this economic new look which endeavours to do what the military fierce look was not able to achieve. Indeed, in East Germany I noticed that seven or eight months of smiling had achieved more for the U.S.S.R. than seven or eight years of snarling. In other words, this new scheme shows a flexibility of policy under the present leaders that Stalin never achieved or never tried to achieve.
Now, having dealt with these generalities, I come to various more specific issues. I was interested in what the minister had to say about the recognition of communist China. A few months ago, on August 25, he made a speech in Vancouver in which he dealt with the question of recognition. He said:
I mention these matters not to indicate that we are rushing into-or should rush into-any change of policy in this matter of diplomatic recognition, in a way that would cause bitter controversy at home and with certain friendly nations. I am suggesting, however, that the time is coming-and soon-when we should have another and searching look at the problem; that we should consider it also with those friendly governments with whom we like to act-and whenever possible should act together on matters of international importance.
Well, sir, out of this searching look has come the general statement on the part of the minister today. Strangely enough only recently he was giving advice to the United States in an article in Look magazine. Apparently on January 10 he advised the United States somewhat differently, at least that is

External Affairs
he way the people of the United States read t. Paragraph 4 of his advice reads:
We should recognize the fact that the Peiping [overnment and not Chiang Kai-shek is in control if continental China and likely to remain so; that here are basic problems to be settled in the Far Cast which cannot be settled without the participa-ion and agreement of that government. We can legotiate with Peiping when necessary and desir-tble without implying approval of that regime or vithout weakening our opposition to communism.
This advice, 18 or 19 days old, given to the Jnited States, is certainly far from the view-joint expressed today by the minister in this [DOT]egard. What he says today represents the ittitude taken by the Leader of the Opposition Mr. Drew) and this party. We do not say ve will never consent to recognition of com-nunist China. We say so long as communist Ihina remains an undischarged bankrupt in ;he field of diplomacy and in the field of iggression, so long can there be no justifica-;ion for the legal recognition of that country. ;n the old days when the theories of Grotius lad application, recognition was a simple egal expedient. Today, recognition would be iccepted throughout Asia amongst those lations that still stand against communism is the greatest approval measure of commun-sm and communist China that could possibly je achieved by that country.
Certainly, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) was not so sure about recognition. He did not have the same views in November ;hat the minister had when he spoke in Van-:ouver and flew that kite to the women's association out there.
The Minister of Fisheries had his experi-ince when he was actually channelled into places to which he did not want to go. He was channelled into China. In his interview >n November 11 he finally ended up in this way:
Mr. Sinclair said the United Nations had laid lown certain standards for peace-loving nations and it might be questioned if communist China met these standards. It had played a "cat-and-mouse game'' in the release of 47 missionaries recently, failing to let them go in a group and leaving those waiting to receive them at Hong Kong uncertain of time of arrival.
Such acts made it difficult for some to see they were quite ready for admission to the United Nations.
As far as recognition is concerned, while some may say it is different from admission ;o the United Nations, it indeed has very nuch the same results. The minister said ;here is one thing in the recognition of China ;hat we should take into consideration, and ;hat is, what is best for Canada? I am asking lim, to use his own words, the words he used to the Women's Canadian Club in Vancouver: Was our own national advantage me of those things that were to be considered,
EMr. Diefenbaker.]
and if there were recognition would we get paid for the Ming Sung shipping deal? Was that one of the things? In the minister's enunciation of policy today with respect to recognition he adopted the point of view which we expressed on more than one occasion, and on one occasion in particular, paraphrasing those immortal words of the late Mackenzie King: "not necessarily recognition, but recognition if necessary".
We now come to one problem that I am surprised the minister stayed away from. While he did give a casual examination to the Middle East situation the other day, I believe, Mr. Speaker, the events of the last few days and the bungling answers of the government in regard to the shipment of Harvard aircraft to Egypt have resulted in an understandable predilection against discussing this matter any further. I can quite understand that. What are those events? Well, Mr. Speaker, read Hansard if you would like to see the greatest collection of jarring, irreconcilable answers made by different ministers at different times or by the same minister at different times. It is one of the most peculiar incidents that have happened in this parliament. It is very unusual. I hold in my hand copies of Hansard and I intend to refer to them in a general way. I start first with the inexcusable attitude of this government toward parliament. The other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe)-he is not in his seat at the moment-spoke at a dinner given in his honour and in honour of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner), and both were entitled to all honour. But the Minister of Trade and Commerce decided to give the people assembled there a lesson in parliamentary procedure. He prefaced his remarks by saying: "I am a House of Commons man". Well, Mr. Speaker, that indeed will arouse tremendous interest in the mind of Sir Winston Churchill who described himself in that way on one occasion.
I ask the Prime Minister, through you, sir, what is the reason for all this evasive bungling that has been going on since this matter was first brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) on January 11? I am not going to read the record in detail, but it is a record that I doubt whether the Prime Minister, with all his masterful legal skill, could bring into anything but disorder. I ask this question because if they did not have anything to hide, one wonders, why all the hiding. If there was not something they did not want to reveal, why all the explanation?
On January 11 the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked the Secretary of State

for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) the following question, as reported at page 9 of Hansard:
Have any aircraft been shipped from Canada to Egypt recently or are there any orders on hand for the export of such aircraft?
After a few preliminary words, the minister said:
I would have to make inquiries of the Department of Trade and Commerce as well as my own department. However, I believe I can say at once that I know of no shipments of Canadian aircraft to Egypt or of any orders for such shipments.
It is strange. Today the Prime Minister said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was consulted. First they said they did not know anything, and I am not blaming him. The subject of the question sat there. Beside him sat the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney), who also had to be consulted, and a little further along the row sat the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I sometimes wonder whether he did the whole thing on his own, and that is the reason they did not know, but certainly they did not know.
Well, what happened next? On January 12 again the hon. member for Winnipeg North asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question and the minister brushed him off with a frivolity when he said he should have been satisfied with his own answer. Then the hon. member for Esqui-malt-Saanich (Mr. Pearkes) asked a question, but he did not get very much information either. Then we come to January 17 and the minister proceeded to give an explanation, which appears on page 183 of Hansard. And, Mr. Speaker, imagine what misled him. It was the word "recent". The question was whether there had been any shipments recently. "Recent" is a hard word, subject to a number of definitions. That is what misled the minister. He said, of course, that it was not recently, it was back in June or July that those orders were given. Then, January 18, the Prime Minister was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North whether he would cancel the export permits, and the Prime Minister said that no consideration had been given to that. Well, that was another step, and still we did not find out anything about those Harvards, except in a general way.
Then came Friday, January 20, and a lengthy explanation was given. It is an interesting one because one of the ministers who did not know anything about this, namely, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris), said in part, as reported at page 344 of Hansard:
We are quite proud of our record and we are prepared to defend it at any time.
External Affairs
After the Prime Minister had given his explanation I asked him a very simple question, which appears at the bottom of page 345 of Hansard as follows:
Reverting to earlier discussion between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister, would the Prime Minister tell the house whether the issue of export permits covering aircraft, explosives or other war material is decided at the cabinet level or on the basis of certain principles and, if so, what are those principles and when were they first communicated to the Department of Trade and Commerce?
The Prime Minister said:
Matters concerning the acceptance or otherwise of orders for any of that type of material are discussed at the cabinet level. But to my knowledge no orders are accepted before information has been communicated to those with whom it is sought to place the orders . . .
Then I asked this question:
When was the decision made regarding the export permit for aircraft for Egypt? At approximately what date did the cabinet determine that question?
And in reply to the inquiry when did the cabinet determine that question, the Prime Minister said:
It was some time in June of last year.
I then asked this question, which is unanswered today, as it was on January 20:
How is it that when the question was asked at the beginning of the session none of the ministers seemed to know anything about it? How is it they knew nothing about it?
At this point Mr. Fleming interjected:
I guess they were not at the cabinet meeting.
Then we come to the next step. Just picture this record of fumbling and bungling, if not evasion. The next step was that an order in council was passed. That is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce said. This statement was made after 13 days of searching. And when the Minister of Trade and Commerce announced that an order in council had been passed, the other ministers sat and remained silent. When we asked for production of the order in council the Minister of Trade and Commerce informed us that he had made a mistake. He said, we do not pass orders in council on things like that.
What is this? Is this the manner in which we are to be treated in respect of information for which we ask on matters less serious than this? Today, however, the Prime Minister brings forward the final and revised version as of this date, and the possibility exists that in the days ahead there will be additional versions. The Prime Minister said it was by a ministerial order by the minister who thought he had an order in council passed. How often, Mr. Speaker, we have said that the cabinet enjoys the kind of

External Affairs
solidarity that it has exhibited today. What did they do? Who knows? If ever the loose practices of this cabinet have been revealed it has been in connection with this matter- everybody on board and nobody knowing where he is going; everyone with a different explanation. That is the parliamentary end of this matter. I say to the government in relation to external affairs and other matters that we in the opposition have our responsibilities to discharge. We expect-and have a right to expect-to be treated with candour. We were not treated with candour or frankness in this regard. There has been throughout this whole sorry spectacle an illustration of cabinet irresponsibility which cannot do anything else but shake the faith of those who like to believe that the information they receive, although it may not be all the information, does cover the actual facts.
The minister said on January 27 that, when aircraft were going to sensitive areas, ministerial concurrence was required of the ministers of external affairs, defence, and trade and commerce. The country in question was a sensitive area. The minister of external affairs so described it in the article published in Look magazine when he said:
In the Middle East, war could flare up any day between Israel and the Arab states. The Soviets are fanning the embers with arms shipments to Egypt (and incidentally with other communist governments, capturing about half of Egypt's foreign trade).
This statement indicates that the minister of external affairs regarded as dangerous the action of the U.S.S.R. in delivering munitions to the Middle East. He said that such shipments were "fanning the embers". I now ask the Prime Minister the question: Are you not doing the same thing when under such circumstances as have existed in the past six months you are employing this under-the-table method of delivering Har-vards and thus doing your part to fan those embers? I do not think it will always be that way. If conditions worsen there we can change our policy, but as long as the situation remains as it is today I say there can be no justification for condemning the U.S.S.R. for doing on a larger scale what we ourselves are doing.
As a result of the outstanding contribution made by its representatives in external affairs in every part of the world Canada has established a reputation as an objective nation whose interests are above the monetary considerations which actuate some nations. But as a result of the course taken by the government Canada's position of objectivity and moderation has been jeopardized. Having granted permits to export arms, the government has removed the most potent weapon

in Canada's arsenal of democracy, the moral weapon. Canada is no longer in the position where it can be a conciliator. It is no longer in the position where it can look on the other nations and say, "We are disinterested". Surely those things were thought of beforehand. Can the minister continue to rise in his seat and express Canada's moral indignation concerning the conduct of the U.S.S.R. in doing on a larger scale what Canada is doing? Surely the minister in his speech the other day did not intend to take virtually the same position as the U.S.S.R. when he said that, if we do not ship munitions to this country, the Russians will.
The things which have happened in the last few days indicate that the government knows that it has done wrong; surely it knows that. It is a piece of cynicism to say, "If we did not do so, the U.S.S.R. would have done it".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but it is five o'clock and the house will proceed to a consideration of private and public bills.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper, Nos. 25 to 36. I do not see the sponsors; shall these bills stand?


Major James William Coldwell: Stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The items under private and public bills having been disposed of, the house will resume consideration of the business that was interrupted at five o'clock.




John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that by this conduct Canada's potentialities as conciliator and mediator have received a setback, as has Canada's reputation for selflessness, in the international world of today. I do not say that this condition should continue if world conditions change for the worse; then this matter can be reappraised. Having regard to the events of the past few weeks and what has been revealed here, I say-and I dislike to say it -that I think the conduct of this government deserves the condemnation of Canada for having, at a time like this, added its share of fuel to the embers which today are burning in the Middle East. I believe that this whole matter should be fully considered -and I know there have been alternative suggestions-by a parliamentary committee. Let us look into this. Let us find out the reasons for all the things that have taken

place, these bumbling, mumbling explanations, these detours and deviations.
It is unbelievable that out of something that is above board, as the government says, it should have been necessary for the government to build alibi after alibi. As one alibi was punctured, another found its place. Let me say this, too. This is something that is beyond partisanship; it is a matter affecting all Canadians; and we have always adopted that attitude. I should like to see some of the Liberal members speaking on this subject. I noticed that when the minister was in Moscow he made a very interesting statement there. He said, "When I return to Canada, I will discuss with other Canadian government members the question of forming a puppet theatre there". I do not know whether that is what this government has been trying to do since he got back but, if he could sit over there, he would not have to go to Moscow to see a puppet show.
I should like to mention one other thing. I believe with all my heart that the state of Israel must be preserved. As one walks through that state, one sees the foundations of civilization and one sees the landmarks of the conquerors, Persian, Assyrian, Roman, Crusader and Turk. One sees places holy to the three monotheistic religions. One sees a state in which a profound social revolution is taking place, vital and living, based on the imagination and inspiration of a dedicated people.


Mr. Martin:: Would my hon. friend permit me to ask him a question? He has said that the state of Israel must, of course, be preserved at all costs. With that, everyone is in agreement. Will he agree, and does he say now, that arms should be sent to Israel to guarantee that preservation?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall return to that in a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have never run away from any questions in the way the government runs away from questions from this side. Perhaps I may finish this, because I know my hon. friend, with his capacity for language, would expect me to complete the sentence. From the humblest to the greatest, this country, Israel, is engaged in the great adventure of creating a new democracy and achieving economic independence.
What should be done? What is this government doing about bringing into effect an international force to protect and assure the boundaries? What has it done? The other day there was a suggestion for the maintenance in their integrity of the boundaries under
External Affairs
an international arrangement very much in the same fashion as was dreamed of by Castlereagh over 130 years ago. What have they done about it? If conditions got worse and war broke out, then conditions as to the shipment of munitions would change, and all of us would change the views we have now; but until that time, on the basis of the words of the minister, remember that the sending of munitions is adding fire to the embers.
I suggest to my hon. friend who interrupted that one of the things he can do, with his influence in the United Nations, is to see to it that something in the nature of an international force is established to the end that this dangerous situation shall be obliterated. If it is not, and war breaks out there, we shall have war all over the world, for in every generation that area has seen the march of conquerors. It is almost like a beaten road for war.
What should we do? I say that we must face this problem courageously and manfully and not in the manner that we have seen here-a government hiding behind one explanation and then another, then throwing both overboard and finding refuge in still another. If the cabinet operates in other major matters in the same way that the Prime Minister revealed today and in the past few days, then indeed the question might well be asked, who leads, and whither?
My hon. friend mentioned NATO. The cement that has held NATO together has been fear. As I see it, the great danger today is this: that the removal of fear from the hearts of men will at the same time also remove that determination among nations to stand together. That is why I believe that article 2 deserves more intensive consideration now than ever in the past, in view of the new policy of the Soviet union. My hon. friend says we need today something of the spirit of faith, as I understood him, and I believe that. But what we need today is courage as well as faith, rather than challenging or truculent exhibitions of bravado such as "dancing to the brink of disaster." That type of expression is not conducive to peace. The minister has told us of his trip through the U.S.S.R. and to Moscow. The U.S.S.R. is using a new system. It is a kind of circus parade. Khrushchev and Bulganin go through India and they catch the imagination of the people. If only President Eisenhower had the health he had prior to last August! Would it not have been a great thing for him to go there and carry to those people something of his sincerity and the faith that he has in democracy, enjoying as he does the respect and admiration of peoples all over the world?

External Affairs
NATO may weaken. France has withdrawn three divisions to North Africa. German rearmament is slow. I have the figures here and rearmament is slower than was anticipated. Free nations cannot, as Eden said, negotiate from weakness. What is the new NATO policy? Three ministers went over there, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Harris) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Campney). What policy was determined there? It was determined that a warning line was going to be built throughout Europe to which all of us would contribute. Has not the time come to reconsider the whole NATO set-up to the end that, since we are in a position in northern Canada of being in a potential front line, the general contribution of NATO should also be used within this country so that expenditures in northern Canada for defence will be part and parcel of the NATO defence for all the world?
Other matters will be dealt with by those who follow. We face, as the minister says, a new Soviet with a flexible, resourceful, ruthless policy. In the military field atomic energy seems to have resulted in a draw, but there remains one field that we have never yet explored to the extent that we should, the field of the hearts of men. We need a message to be given to the peoples in other parts of the world of what freedom means and the power that comes to men as they draw strength from the wells of freedom. We need the ability to explain that power. We need to mobilize their hearts by showing that our system is better than theirs.
The momentous task of the free world is not to falter in continuing to make the maximum effort for peace by negotiation, by the kind of thing the minister did when he talked face to face with Bulganin and Khrushchev. Negotiation might well have prevented the first world war. Sir Edward Grey said in his memoirs that if only the nations had continued to negotiate, the first world war would not have taken place. We must continue that negotiation. We must continue to provide mutual opportunities to meet those who are parliamentarians in other countries, particularly in the U.S.S.R. We must negotiate, but always with prudence and caution, and above all we must be on guard against unwarranted optimism, against becoming the manipulated victims of falsely created hopes on the part of the U.S.S.R. as that country wages its international war for the hearts of men.

I therefore move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Drew):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"in view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries in that area not within the NATO alliance: and also condemns the government for the lack of candour with which the matter has been dealt with in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier in his remarks the hon. member for Prince Albert dealt with a declaration approved by the Supreme Soviet, dated February 9, 1955, in which are included three paragraphs at the end referring to what is presumably an invitation to exchange parliamentarians between the parliaments of the world. Certainly the hon. member was not aware that as recently as last Friday a meeting was held in my office of the whips of the four parties at which it was decided to study the matter. I think I should say in fairness to the whips that at that meeting an undertaking was given to the effect that the whips would report the subject matter to their various caucuses which, I understand, are to be held tomorrow morning. Another meeting is then to be held to deal further with the matter.


Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, the debate this afternoon is, of course, to some degree supplementary to the address which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made in the house last Tuesday, and a little later on in my speech I intend to take the opportunity to comment on the minister's remarks regarding the situation in the Middle East and to say something about the policy that I think Canada should support and forward both with the great powers and with the United Nations. But before I do that, Mr. Speaker,
I should like to say that I am very happy this afternoon to be able to compliment the Canadian delegation at the United Nations last autumn. I think that delegation, under the leadership of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Martin), placed Canada in an excellent position and in a good light before the other nations of the world.
I am very happy indeed that the membership of the United Nations was expanded because I believe that sooner or later, if the United Nations is to become the kind of organization that we originally hoped it would be, it must become universal in character. Any step taken in that direction is, in my opinion, a right and proper move.
This afternoon we have heard a great deal about the disturbed situation of the world, about the determination of the Soviet union to expand its influence across the world in

various ways. I believe the minister is quite right when he tells the house that owing to the terror of the new weapons of war, particularly the hydrogen bomb, we are not likely to see the Soviet union embark on a shooting war-and of course we are not likely to see any nation outside of the Soviet union do so-which, with the modern weapons of war, would bring the world into ruins around us all. But I am inclined to think that the minister this afternoon rather underrated the potential influence of the Soviet union and the nations associated with the Soviet union in the competition which is developing in the field of economic aid. I think that what we are witnessing today is perhaps a diminution of the dangers of a military contest and that that military contest has been replaced by a new contest, namely a contest to win the world by means of economic and technical aid.
It may be said

as was said by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) -that the Soviet union has been unable to feed its people properly because of the failure of its agricultural plan. But the Russian people for centuries back, I was going to say-and I think that is probably the right thing to say-have been accustomed to an extremely low standard of living. From all the reports that we get, from what we heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) here and elsewhere and from what we heard from the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) when he returned to Canada, undoubtedly those extremely low standards of living have been improved. The Russian people, seeing some slight improvement in the standards of living, are willing to forgo the great improvements that people in our countries would expect by great industrial expansion, so the Soviet union may be able to do more than make promises in the field of economic aid to the underprivileged nations of the world.
That brings me to the point that I really wish to make this afternoon, namely that the western nations-and among them Canada- must do very much more than we have been doing in assisting the under-privileged nations of the world to improve their standards of life and to go forward and therefore to resist those who would foment revolution and the institution of dictatorships. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that I used the plural "dictatorships". I did so because it is not so long ago that a great country, in its distress, turned to a dictatorship of a different sort from that of the dictatorship of the communist party. I refer, of course, to the dictatorships that arose in the early 1930's in Europe, particularly that in Germany. To my
External Affairs
mind there is always a real danger of the emergence not only of communist dictatorships but of fascist dictatorships. I think they flourish on the same kind of fertile ground, namely the ground of misery and of want. When we look over the problem faced by the United Nations organizations in this field of economic aid, we find that it is a stupendous one. When we look at the resources that have been granted to the organizations that have been set up, we find that those resources are pitifully small.
Some time ago I jotted down some statements made by the United Nations secretary general of the technical aid organization. He is a gentleman whom many of us know well in Canada. I refer, of course, to Dr. Keenley-side. In Weekend magazine published by several newspapers in this country as a supplement on Saturdays, in the issue of July 9, 1955, he had some striking things to say. He said:
Grim figures illustrate the conditions under which a great part of the earth's population lives:
Over half the world's people are illiterate.
Most of the earth's inhabitants suffer from hunger most of the time.
Almost two-thirds of the people of the world have an average income of less than $100 a year compared with more than $1,500 in the United States.
The amount is only slightly less in Canada. In fact if we take the inflated figures of last year of the gross national product and divide it by our population last year, I think it will be found that we exceed that $1,500 figure. I know that when I was at the United Nations organization meeting in 1945 one of the statements that startled me-


Mr. Marlin:: In 1946.


Major James William Coldwell: -when I was on the committee that set up the economic and social council at San Francisco, was the statement that two-thirds of the people of the world-two out of every three persons-went to bed hungry every night. It was not necessarily the same two out of three but always two out of three. Generally speaking, that condition is no better today than it was in 1945.


Murdo William Martin: That was in 1946; the fall of 1946.


Major James William Coldwell: Yes; in 1946 as well. Dr. Keenleyside went on to say this:
More than half are ill (500 million suffer from malaria; almost the entire land mass between the tropics is afflicted with yaws-
That is a dreadful tropical disease which a small amount of penicillin will suffice to cure.
-400 million have venereal diseases; between 3 million and 5 million a year die from tuberculosis-[DOT] and that is just the beginning of the list.

External Affairs
Much has been said about what is being done already through various schemes of assistance to under-developed areas. There is the United Nations technical assistance program, the Colombo plan, the Point Four program in the United States and the like. But the discussion of these organizations at the United Nations and the numbers of words used far exceed the amount of money appropriated to do the kind of jobs that these organizations are endeavouring to do.
Then he went on to say this:
We could go on for 200 years at the present rate without producing the effects that are wanted.
Then he remarks on the United Nations technical assistance program. He said:
It originally envisaged the spending of $25 million to $35 million in the first 18-month period during 1950-51, and an expansion to above $50 million to $100 million annually within a few years.
How near are we to that target? Because of the reluctance of some governments-and may I add because of the reluctance of governments like Canada's government-to give a greater lead in appropriations for this cause our contribution is to some extent minimized. We are all inclined to say that on a per capita basis we should contribute this much if somebody else contributes that much. I am glad that a year ago we increased our contribution from $1 million to $1,500,000 a year. But how petty that amount really is, as I shall show in a moment, I hope, in comparison with other expenditures that we make.
The article goes on to say:
Because of the reluctance of some governments to contribute on a sufficient scale, the sum of $25 million was achieved for the first time in 1954. But the amount of money available has not increased at all in proportion to the requests from the various governments for assistance.
Some western nations are spending $100 on military defence for every $1 spent on aid to the underdeveloped areas. While military preparation is a first requirement under today's conditions, this proportion of spending strikes many observers as being badly out of balance.
What is our own record in that same field? Let us look at our expenditures, and I take them from the public accounts for 1954-55 tabled in this house. Our total economic aid of every sort, according to the public accounts, was $29,016,824.86. What did we spend for national defence? We spent $1,665,968,960.31. This amount does not include the defence production expenditures which were made in addition to the figure I have just placed on the record. What would economic aid be as a percentage of the military defence figure which I have just noted? It is 1-74 per cent. Our population on July 31, 1955, was estimated by the dominion bureau of statistics to be 15,637,000. Our

economic aid amounted to $1.86. per capita. On the other hand, for military expenditures, not counting defence production, we spent $106.54 per capita.
Now I contend, Mr. Speaker, that we are not going to be successful in winning the world for the kind of democracy and freedom in which we believe and which we enjoy in our western countries. We may urge different steps in democratic development, and all the rest of it: we may visualize different stages in our evolution from one form of economic structure to another; but in our western countries we all value personal freedom and human liberty. We want to see that extended across the world. My belief is that we are not going to win this struggle unless we are prepared to do far more than we have been doing by way of economic aid. I am very glad to note that the Colombo plan aid is to be increased this year. However, it is not particularly substantial when compared with our wealth and compared with our expenditures in other fields. But it is a step in the right direction, and I am very glad indeed to see it undertaken.
I noted the articles that were written by that brilliant young journalist who travels and reports from time to time for the Ottawa Journal, Mr. I. Norman Smith. I read his articles when he was sending them from the Soviet union and the Far East. I read the speech which he delivered before the Canadian Club in this city some two or three weeks ago. In that address he had this to say:
Yet the Colombo plan is virtually all Canada is doing about Asia, the area Mr. Pearson says may be history's most important crucible at this time.
1 do not relish saying what I am about to say, but I must say it. I have found that many Canadians seem almost to resent the poverty of Asian people. It embarrasses us, we look the other way if they beg and say to ourselves that we cannot stand beggars. But if they do not beg, and instead seem to keep company with arrant nationalists or even communists, then we call them fellow travellers and shut up our doors.
Well, that is one man's opinion and it may not be entirely correct. But undoubtedly we are complacent. There is no room for complacency in the kind of world in which we live today, a world in which millions of people are hungry, sick and illiterate; millions of people who may very easily be enticed into the communist orbit. I am thinking particularly of India, because I feel India is the key country in Asia from our point of view. If India should fall behind China in improving the standards of living, if the Chinese under their dictatorship, no matter how harsh it may be, are able over the next 10, 15 or 25 years, to outpace India in improving the

standards of life in that part of Asia, then the communist orbit will be extended over a vast majority of the human race.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, we have every facility for assisting in improving conditions in these countries. The other afternoon I mentioned the necessity of our building up our educational system so that we might not be outpaced in the field of science. May I just say in passing that when I speak of science and technical education I do not believe, of course, that we should endeavour only to make men scientists or technicians. I think the basis of even a scientific and technical education is a good, what we call a liberal, education. I think the humanities are as essential to the scientists or technicians as they are to any other calling or profession. We have to develop technicians and scientists, not only for ourselves, but we have to be able to provide them in greater numbers to the backward countries of the world.
I am not saying how much we should appropriate. I am not saying we can appropriate a billion dollars out of the defence budget or something of that sort. But I am saying we can do many times what we are doing now in order to preserve ourselves, our safety and the future welfare of the land in which we live. I am very happy indeed to see that we are making a slight improvement in our contribution to the Colombo plan. A year and a half ago I would have liked to have seen Canada support the proposal for the special United Nations fund. A proposition was put forward that, in addition to all the other agencies, we should set up a new organization with a capitalization, if my memory serves me correctly, of about $250 million-not Canada alone but the nations together-to assist in the development of the underdeveloped countries. This was not necessarily an organization which would have within it only publicly appropriated funds by parliaments. Private capital was to be invited to assist in the establishment of the fund and the working out of its details. I was with the delegation at New York when that came up, and I was sorry to know that our government could not see its way clear at that time to support the proposal. I know it will come before the United Nations from time to time and I hope that sooner or later the government may see its way clear not only to take part but perhaps to give some leadership in that field.
We have heard a great deal about these matters from time to time and I wanted to emphasize them again this afternoon because as I have said-and I want to repeat it-the struggle that is going on in the world is not going to be won on the battlefields of the
External Affairs
world; it is going to be won to the extent that we can win over to the democratic ideals that we hold in common with those associated with us and to our side those countless people of Asia and of Africa who today need our help and our aid.
I now want to say something about the situation in the Middle East. I thought the minister made a very excellent windup to his speech last Tuesday. I thought he was rather unnecessarily harsh in his criticism of the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) because the hon. gentleman had brought something before the house that he considered to be of importance at that time. We all realize that what he did was done in good faith. Because of the situation with which the world is faced in the Middle East that area has become the danger spot of the world. We had Korea; we had Formosa. Now we have the Middle East. I agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that it would be indeed a great world tragedy, a great loss to the world, if the newly emerging democratic state of Israel were to be destroyed. It is the only state in that area of the world with institutions like our own; it is the only state in that part of the world with leadership of a democratic sort; it is the only state in that part of the world with an institution like the institution in which we are assembled today. A parliamentary institution modelled very largely along our lines; and indeed, as I know from talking to the clerk of the Knesset, with procedures that are very similar to the procedures that we use in this parliament.
We look back over the years and we find that the Israel-Arab armistice of 1949 has been followed ever since by hostility from the surrounding countries. They resent the establishment of the new state of Israel in that area. So great was the danger that in 1950 the three powers issued the tripartite agreement or declaration, Britain, the United States and France. They attempted at that time to check the drift to actual war. Their declaration, of course, was designed at that time to stabilize conditions there. How? Well, first of all, of course, by a warning that if Israel were attacked there would be immediate intervention; that no party, neither Israel nor the Arab states, should try to alter the boundaries as they had then been drawn. In addition, they tried to maintain a balance there by restricting the inflow of arms into the whole area. But since 1950 various events have happened. First of all, we had the evacuation of the Suez canal area by the United Kingdom, which gave to the Arab nations, and primarily to Egypt, access to

External Affairs
many modern weapons and arms. Since then, of course, other weapons of war have been shipped to Egypt; but the most alarming thing that has happened to upset the balance in that area is the recent agreement between the Egyptians and the Czechs under which, with the assistance of the Soviet union, vast supplies of modern arms are going into Egypt, and the threat becomes ever greater, not only of an outbreak of war in that area, but if war should come and no assistance be forthcoming, the state of Israel might conceivably be eliminated.
Those of us who have been to Israel are well aware of the fact that in some places the distance between Israel's boundary and the sea is less than twelve miles. If my memory serves me rightly, in one place it is around six miles. How easy it would be for an enemy to cut across, divide the country and destroy it. They have, as those of us who have been there have seen, a very intelligent and well-trained armed force.
I am not suggesting that we should foment an arms race in that area. Indeed, I find it very difficult to think how an arms race could be fomented in that area under the conditions that exist there, where arms are being poured into Egypt from Czechoslovakia and from communist countries and similar arms denied to Israel. We could not conceivably pour in arms at the same rate, nor could Israel arrange to purchase them. And yet, of course, when you look back over the last twenty or thirty years, you wonder how a nation can exist unless it has firm guarantees from the great powers that are interested in its survival. I hope that when Sir Anthony Eden is here next week-and for certain this problem will be discussed; it may not be discussed publicly but it will be discussed privately-the minister will use his very best endeavour to get him and, as far as the minister can influence the United States, the state department of that country, to make a declaration saying that if war is started in that area by either side immediately the great powers will intervene on the side opposite to the aggressor nation to stop the conflict and to prevent war.
I should like 'to see the United States and Great Britain do that. France, of course is so involved in North Africa that I am not even suggesting it participate, I quite agree with the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that what we need is a security force under the United Nations but we do not have it. We cannot rely on a force that does not exist to preserve peace. That, of course, is not logical nor sound and it certainly could not be effective if not in being.

I do not know whether or not the great powers would see to it that the state of Israel were not left defenceless. I would not send into Israel offensive equipment in the nature of bombers or something of that sort, but I doubt very much if the nations of the world can afford to see Israel threatened and inadequately armed, bearing in mind the relative proportions of population in Israel and the surrounding Arab states. There is one person in Israel for every 30 Arabs in the Arab states and the latter are well armed and well equipped now. I do not think the second suggestion I implied would be necessary if the great powers said, "We are going to see to it that no war starts in that area and we are going to stop aggression immediately, no matter from which side it comes".
I cannot conceive of Israel being imbued with a warlike spirit to try to drive back the 30 million Arab people from its borders. If Israel should attempt it they should be stopped from doing it. If, on the other hand, Egypt and the Arab states move against Israel, then I think that the great powers might make it abundantly clear that they would intervene immediately and stop the conflict. I think all of us in this house agree that it is essential that the state of Israel shall continue to exist and prosper.
I am going to move an amendment to the amendment because I think the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Prince Albert does not take into consideration conditions that might arise from time to time. I feel his amendment is too binding on this nation and that we should have some latitude, that our hands should not be tied too tightly in connection with the situation that exists there.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the amendment be amended by inserting therein immediately after the word "alliance" the following words:
"without at the same time making sure that peace in that area would be guaranteed either by the United Nations or by the powers that signed the tripartite agreement of 1950, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France."
It seems to me in that way we safeguard ourselves against possible misunderstanding. We do not say that under all circumstances we would be averse to supplying means of defence to a nation which we assisted in establishing. One of the things which pleased me when I was in Jerusalem and various other parts of Israel was to discover the high regard in which Canada is held by that country because of the work our minister of external affairs did on the commission some years ago, because

of the work done by Mr. Justice Rand, whose name stands high in the regard of the people of that country, and because of the work that is being done today-or was being done when I was there-by General Burns. Those three names, if not universally known, are known among the people who lead that nation and among others who take an interest in affairs. They hold Canada in high esteem. We should leave ourselves room in which to move so that if the existence of a country which we helped to establish were threatened we would not be so bound that our government could not take effective steps to give immediate aid in the situation.
My time has just about run out, Mr. Speaker. I should like to have said something about the European situation and NATO. I am glad to know that those who went overseas last year to meet with other parliamentary delegations to discuss and examine NATO came back feeling pleased that they were afforded the opportunity of visiting there and brought back much useful information. I believe these inter-parliamentary meetings, whether they are commonwealth meetings, united nations meetings or other parliamentary gatherings, serve a useful purpose. I am glad to know that the parliamentarians from Canada who visited NATO last year feel that the expedition was worth while and that they were able to advance the interests of our country and of the NATO cause by their attendance at the meeting.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the opportunity, presented at this early date in the session, of discussing some of the very important aspects of the present international situation.
With reference to the international scene, the speech from the throne intimated that some developments have been welcome as releasing tensions in certain parts of the world while other unfortunately have had the contrary effect. Also in the speech this afternoon of the Secretary of State for External Affairs we had presented to us in a very clear manner the conditions that exist in various parts of our world. This helped to clarify some matters and to answer some questions that have been of concern to us.
We, of course, are in the position where we are not able to look at these things at first
External Affairs
hand but we must glean our information concerning world affairs from various sources, and we are quite ready to admit some of them may not be reliable in every respect. However, after considerable study of the various situations and after comparing reports and making inquiries in various fields, there are a number of conclusions at which we are justified in arriving.
After we analyse the whole picture, it would appear that the prospects for stability and peace in the world are no brighter than they were some months ago. The cold war, apparently, is still on. Tensions in various sectors continue to hamper the efforts of men of good will in their quest for grounds for mutual confidence and understanding. The leaders of the nation have so far failed to find that common ground which, I believe, is essential to international peace and harmony.
I am not saying that the situation is hopeless. I would not want to think that that were so. We are not saying that it is hopeless and that therefore further efforts are more or less in vain. But the very fact that dangers still obtain, the very fact that tensions still exist, the very fact that efforts up to the present time have not yielded the results we had hoped for, those very facts must urge us on to even greater efforts towards peace and security. There must be a greater concentration and dedication of our resources, intellectual, moral, spiritual, economic, and in every other sense, to the task of establishing and maintaining a society in which justice, equity, peace, mutual understanding and freedom may be preserved for all the peoples of the world.
It would be impossible to deal with all the many matters of urgent concern. A number of them have already been dealt with in the debate today. It would seem that the numbers of important matters are increasing rather than diminishing. As has been pointed out, in some areas of our world these problems are of such a nature that they could, it seems, at any moment result in limited, if not widespread, conflict.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt at length with the continued threat and the fact of communist aggression and expansion. I do not think it is necessary to review the stages by which a large portion of the world's population has been brought under the tyranny of this despotic and diabolical system. Suffice it at the moment to say that its spread has been rapid and far too extensive. We find our world divided into two camps: the east and the west. It has been referred to as a conflict for the minds and for the very souls of men. Certainly, when we

External Affairs
look at it from that viewpoint, we can understand the magnitude, and the importance, of the task that confronts the statesmen of the world.
Last summer the world looked forward with a great deal of expectation to the conference that was called to meet in Geneva. The leaders of the four nations met there together to try to solve, or to get a deeper understanding of, the problems that confronted these four nations. It was suggested that the purpose of that meeting was to explore the extent of the change in the Soviet policy and also to deal with a number of other matters of great concern.
The Toronto Star in an article outlined the proposed eight topics for that discussion as set forth by President Eisenhower. German reunification was the first one. The second was an east-west security system in which a united Germany would have the right to choose its own allies. The third was the right of the Soviet satellites to choose their own form of government. The fourth was the tearing down of "communication and human" barriers between the Soviet union and the west. The fifth was an end to subversion by international communism. The sixth was limitation of armaments. The seventh was a higher standard of living for underdeveloped nations. The eighth was the development for peaceful uses of atomic energy.
When we look at those items which had been placed on the proposed agenda, we realize some of the problems that were confronting those four leaders as they met on that occasion. Those various matters that were broached were, of course, of a very controversial nature, as we can all readily understand. As I say, the world had looked forward with some expectation to that meeting, hoping that some good would be brought out of seeming chaos. But, sad to say, that was not the case.
Much was said about a change in the attitude of the Soviet leaders, about their smiles and their friendly attitude. Some of the newspapers of our country went out of their way to stress the happy and congenial spirit with which the Soviet leaders had approached that gathering, cavorting like tourists, appearing almost unaccompanied when compared with some of the western leaders who had their bodyguards, and so on. Yet we find that the result was negligible. Some have said that great things were accomplished; some have said that some good things were accomplished; but in the over-all picture it would not seem that the results had been too worth while.
TMr. Patterson.]
The Soviet leaders are ever declaring their determination to work for peace. They constantly proclaim themselves as the champions of peace, the champions of freedom and of liberty. But certainly, as has been stated today, their actions do not prove that that is necessarily so. We think of the recent trip that premier Bulganin and party boss Khrushchev made to India and Burma. They seemed to go out of their way to make statements which tended to stir up animosity. It seemed as though they deliberately set themselves to make charges that would cause the western powers to react in a very unfavourable way. I am going to refer to several of them a little later, but I would suggest that the words of Mr. Khrushchev especially were far from words of peace. Their actions on these occasions were not the actions of men who were sincerely and honestly striving to ease world tensions. They certainly were not designed or calculated in any way to foster friendship and good will on the part of the western democracies at least.
There are hopes expressed at times that the communist tactics or their over-all plan and objective may change, but I think their plan and objective still remain the same. Communism plans world domination. Their program has been announced, progress is being made, and their plans seem almost so fantastic that it is hard to believe they are really setting out on that course. But I think the very fact we find it difficult to believe that the program is as outlined adds to the danger in which we find ourselves. And so we think of the progress of communism. We think of the nations that have been brought under the control of the Russian regime, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Ukraine, Poland, Czechoslovakia, yes, China and others. We think of their endeavours in Korea and Indo-China and it would seem that the fact is proven that communism has set its course and that its objective is still the domination of all the peoples of the world.
It has been stated that communism in its attempts to enslave the world takes one step backward and two steps forward. I am inclined to believe that, although we are opposed to communist aggression and expansion, we take one step forward and two steps backwards. I like to look back through the records of the recent past and find what some have said with reference to our attitude or what our attitude should be towards communism. In the Vancouver Province of November 30, 1955, there is a Canadian Press report from the United Nations, New York, reading as follows:
Canada's external affairs minister Pearson has warned that the so-called "soft" Russian approach to world affairs may prove more dangerous to the west than Stalin hostility. In an address to the

U.N. correspondent association, Pearson cautioned against any tendency to relax western defences and urged the people to gird for a long grind of "'competitive coexistence." . .	. He said "competitive coexistence" may prove more hazardous for the west than the cold war tactics of Stalin's regime. "We must make sure that relaxation of tension does not mean relaxation of effort."
I may say I was pleased to note in the speech the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) made today that he still holds that same view. There were times when I almost thought he was going to back track, but I felt a little reassured today to know that he is still facing in the same direction and taking the same attitude with respect to this very serious situation. I should like to refer to an article by George Meany, president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., found in the issue of the Ensign of January 14. The article reads:
Too many in the free world fail to see the real nature of communism as the mortal foe of everything that we hold dear, of every moral and spiritual value. Too many in the free world are still prisoners of the illusion that communism is, historically speaking, a progressive system- extreme liberalism temporarily making bad mistakes. Actually communism represents darkest reaction. It is an anti-social system in which there are imbedded some of the worst features of savagery, slavery, feudalism and life-sapping exploitation manifested in the industrial revolution of early day capitalism.
He goes on to make some other very striking statements with regard to communism and what our attitude should be in response to its challenge. I should like to refer again to an article entitled, "This is Our Foreign Policy" by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Weekend magazine of January 28, 1956, and I like to think that this is the policy of the present government. Speaking of the Soviet rulers and their assaults on NATO and so on, he has this to say:
Their hope is our challenge, and it is going to be a hard one to meet and defeat. Adequate military defence alone will not do it, though it is essential. Close political co-operation between the free nations; flexible and imaginative diplomacy; economic health; social progress; sympathy for and assistance to the underdeveloped free countries, especially in Asia; all these are a part of the answer to this aggressive challenge of international communism. As such they reinforce Canada's security.
I want to refer to the recent trip of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Sinclair) to the Soviet union. We are glad to have the report of the Secretary of State for External Affairs today of his trip to that country, and I would be inclined to say that he is not quite as optimistic about affairs in the U.S.S.R. as the Minister of Fisheries seemingly was. But there are two questions that I should like to ask concerning this visit to the Soviet union. I refer again to an editorial in the
External Affairs
Ensign in which two charges or two statements are made, and I just wonder if they an right. About half-way through this editoria headed "Voyage of Discovery" we read thes< words:
In his press conference, on his return to Canada Mr. Sinclair divulged that the soviets agreed ti satisfy his curiosity, his thirst for first-ham knowledge, at a price which seems exhorbitant both diplomatically as well as in persona sufferings.
First, he was to be their guest on their owl conditions.
And this is the part to which I should lib to call special attention:
That is why his lips are sealed on much tha he saw.


Major James William Coldwell: Who wrote that? Wher
is it from?


Alexander Bell Patterson: It is from an editorial ii
the Ensign of November 26, 1955. I continu reading from it:
Second, he could only travel to Siberia and visi the Siberian coast, if he made a visit also to Rei China to greet members of the puppet regime i: Peking . . .
He told the press in Ottawa, however, that i view of his acceptance of soviet hospitality he i not at liberty to speak freely about what he di observe in soviet Siberia.
Then I want to skip a paragraph and rea the following one:
Plans were readied, as Mr. Sinclair told th press, to fly him to his native Vancouver in few hours by special plane of the Canadian Pacifi Airways. But no-the Soviets insisted on thei price: Sinclair, on stretcher or wheelchair, ha to be delivered to Peking for the proverbl: diplomatic bow, the modern Red Chinese versio of a kowtow to the Red puppets.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Alexander Bell Patterson: I appreciate that clarifk
ation, Mr. Speaker. I was just going to as these questions. Is it right that Mr. Sir clair's lips are sealed with respect to thes things that he saw and heard?


Mr. Mclvor:: No.


An hon. Member:: Let the minister answe


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I assure my hon. frien that Mr. Sinclair's lips are not sealed.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you. There is or
other question that I should like to ha\ clarified. It may be that it is out of ordf to ask questions and to expect answers, bi we are glad to have the answers anyway. 1 it true that in spite of his painful injuri< he was required to travel to Peking and thei to carry on these talks with the Chine: communists? Perhaps the minister wou]

External Affairs
answer that question at a later time. However, those are just two questions that came to my mind as I read that article.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might save time, Mr. Speaker, if I also answered that last question. The answer is no.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Then this newspaper has
apparently misunderstood the facts.


An hon. Member:: And so have you.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: And they
should be censured for it.


Alexander Bell Patterson: There has been some discussion relative to the Middle East situation. In his statement this afternoon the minister did not touch on that matter because he had already made a statement in this regard just a short time ago. I would consider that this is the most sensitive of all the areas at the present time. It is an area in which reside two peoples between whom a feud has been carried on for generations. It was my privilege to be at the United Nations general assembly in 1954. There I heard the representatives of some of the Arab countries and also the delegate from Israel speak in the plenary sessions. Charges and countercharges were made. Yet it was not difficult to sense the feeling of animosity and, on the part of some, of hatred toward the other side on this particular question at that particular time. I would therefore just make my remarks in this respect very brief.
We recall that some time ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) stopped in and had a visit with the leader of Egypt. At that time it was regretted that it was not possible for him to stop in and visit the leaders of the state of Israel at the same time because at that time matters were in an extremely delicate position. However, he has already made the statement that in the near future a visit will be paid to Israel as well. We certainly appreciate that statement because, human nature being what it is and international moves being subject to political interpretations at all times, even these smallest matters must be given due consideration.
As to the Middle East problem, we have had called to our attention a number of things that constitute matters of friction. There is the refugee problem. We are not going into an explanation of the situation with regard to the refugees. I believe that every hon. member in the house is aware of the conditions. There we find a great many refugees herded together in camps and kept in idleness. That is a situation that constitutes a festering sore in that particular part of the world. I should like to suggest that the time

has come when some definite decision should be taken relative to this particular situation.
These people are being sustained by funds from the United Nations Organization. Canada is making her contribution to those funds and is assisting in the maintenance of those people in the camps. But in view of the fact that so much money is being spent and that apparently no endeavour is being made to rehabilitate these people, at least to any extent, it would seem to me that the time has come when a decision ought to be made that the moneys that are given from here on, or after a certain date, must be used for the rehabilitation of these people and not just to maintain them in these camps where they are deteriorating and where they are kept in idleness. There may be reasons why they are being kept there. But certainly I think I am expressing the feelings of this group, at any rate, when I say that our government ought to make some statement to the effect that money that is given from now on must be used for the rehabilitation of these people.
We understand that a considerable number have been accepted back and have been integrated into the economy of the state of Israel. I do not think it is too much to suggest that those who remain should now become the responsibility of the Arab countries, that they should be willing to extend the hand of help and welcome and be willing to integrate the remainder of these people into the economies of the respective Arab nations. I think that this would do a great deal to assist in the solution of the problem that we find in that area.
There is the problem of the boundary. There is the problem of the use of the various water resources of the country. All of these things have their particular point of emphasis. But I think there is something that is behind all of these things. There is the major problem. I should like to call attention to an article in the January 30, 1956, issue of Time magazine. There may be one or two of the words in this article that I do not pronounce correctly, but I shall give the English version of them. The article is in the foreign affairs section under the heading "The Middle East". It is entitled "Holy War".
"Egypt does not want a war." So says Egypt's Premier Abdel Nasser, leading statesman of the Arab world. But the supreme spiritual voice of all Islam in effect denies that protestation. From Cairo's 1,000-year-old A1 Azhar university, the committee of senior Ulema-
The footnote refers to the "Ulema" as:
A body of scholars trained in Islamic law and religion that has long been recognized as the highest Moslem authority in matters of faith.

Let me read that sentence again:
From Cairo's 1,000-year-old A1 Azhar university, the committee of senior Ulema solemly confirmed a jihad (holy war) against Israel.
The fatwa (ruling), a pronouncement having almost the same force for Moslems as a papal encylical for Roman Catholics, decrees that for a moslem to recognize the state of Israel would be to condone an act of robbery.
Then farther down it says:
. . . any peace with Israel that includes recognition of its existence as a state in Palestine "is against faith".
So you see, Mr. Speaker, it goes back beyond some of these problems that appear on the surface, and it is based upon the fact that the Arab world is not prepared, under any circumstances, to recognize the right of Israel to exist as a nation. There, we see the problem all the statesmen of the world are facing in their endeavour to stabilize the situation. I say it is a delicate situation. Any action that is taken by the United Nations or by individual nations, and especially by Canada, must be based upon sound principles, be absolutely fair and must not in any way tend to upset the present balance, if there is a balance. Nor must it tend to add to the tensions already so evident in that troubled area.
I wanted to make a few remarks about the technical assistance program and the Colombo plan. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) placed on the record this afternoon some of the figures relative to the need of the peoples of the world. Their economic conditions were outlined very clearly and they impressed upon us the fact that if we are going to discharge our moral obligations in this world then we must recognize the needs of our fellow men, regardless of where they may be found. We do appreciate the contributions that have been made and are being made by Canada through these various funds, but certainly we feel that they can be extended, they can be increased, for in that way we would assist tremendously in the solution of those problems that are so real to a great portion of our world.
I think we must help those people in the underdeveloped nations to help themselves. We must be willing to share with them the good things that we enjoy. We must increase our contribution and above all it seems to me that the assistance we give must be governed not by political or economic considerations only but by a sincere concern for the welfare of our fellow men.
I was very pleased that in the meeting at Geneva the President of the United States made a clear declaration regarding the satellite nations of Europe. He reminded the Soviet rulers that in order to fulfil their
External Affairs
obligations and fulfil their promises they would be required to grant to those people the freedom to choose their own form of government and to enjoy political freedom and liberty.
I did want to refer to several statements by Mr. Khrushchev while he was in India and Burma. I have a copy of the Soviet bulletin in which those speeches are recorded. When the minister is winding up this debate, I should like him to state whether or not the Canadian embassy in the U.S.S.R. is free to publish and circulate material to the same extent that the Soviet embassy does in this country. These bulletins are very enlightening. I just want to read one or two.
But, continued N. S. Khrushchev, we have condemned and we condemn the colonial system, and hold that the sooner it is done away with the better as it is a profoundly unjust, man-hating system. The sooner the peoples of colonial countries are freed from it, the better. We are the most sincere friends of those who fight against colonial enslavement and colonial dependence.
I should like Mr. Khrushchev to turn around and have a look at some of the countries that are now under communist domination. We think of the satellite countries. We think perhaps of the subjugated nations, those that now have lost their political identity and been swallowed up by communist imperialism. I should like Mr. Khrushchev to answer the question whether he believes in freedom for the European nations as well as for the Asian nations. Certainly, I think that thought should be brought to his attention. If they are going to talk about freedom and liberty for nations, then they are going to be expected to loosen the shackles, break down the iron curtain and give these people an opportunity to make their own choice. Only then can we understand and believe in the sincerity of their proclamation that they are in favour of freedom and liberty around the world.
Today we reaffirm our faith in the principle of self-determination of people. We say the true government of a people is that which they have voluntarily chosen and to which they have pledged allegiance. God grant that such liberty and freedom may be the possession of every nation and every people in the world.


Mr. L. D. Crestohl (Cartier):: There are manifestations in the life of each nation, Mr. Speaker, which generally indicate its aspirations and tendencies. As for our own country, the most recent efforts for world peace by our statesmen clearly evoke for Canada a renewed testimonial. Our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) circled the globe; two of our ministers' flew to Russia, and our

External Affairs
Minister of National Health and Welfare Mr. Martin) fathered the admission of 16 lew countries into the family of nations, all n the hope that the cause of peace in the vorld would be advanced.
These, Mr. Speaker, are the wholesomest nanifestations of a people's genuine desire o live in the spirit of those who, throughout he ages, proclaimed peace on earth and good vill toward mankind. A similar spirit prevailed and manifested itself at the first Geneva conference. The peace tempo was ncreasing, but shortly afterward we were funned by the realization that the Russians vere again merely appeasing our peace lunger while secretly continuing to press heir diabolic plans. They lulled us into lelieving that the Russian bear had dulled ts claws, and now brazenly attempt to do so iy their peace-manoeuvring in Washington ast week, while scheming, no doubt, some )ther nefarious plans.
This scheming, Mr. Speaker, is now directed iy the two enigmatic personalities of Khrushchev and Bulganin, as was so very fioquently stated by the hon. member for Eraser Valley (Mr. Patterson), who spoke a :ew moments ago. The one, Khrushchev is a ilind zealot and a ruthless communist. His ippearance, strangely enough, spells out to he eye the reflection of his personality. The ither is a benign-looking gentleman, but ;ogether, they are the mailed fist in the velvet 'love, and in biblical language, they combine he voice of Jacob with the hands of Esau.
This is confirmed, Mr. Speaker, by the 'act that during the wining and dining, the mailing and the hand-shaking at the Geneva inferences, plans were secretly being made :or the invasion of the Middle East and Africa ay communist ideology.
It is historic knowledge that since the nghteenth century Russia has been aspiring ;o secure a passage through the Bosphorus md the Dardanelles to the Mediterranean. They have now virtually pole-vaulted over \sia Minor and secured reasonable access to he Mediterranean, the Suez canal and the :ontinent of Africa.
The Russians plan cunningly years in advance. Shortly after the second world war, hr example, they laid claims to ports in Italian Libya and Eritrea. In this way they served notice on the world that they seek an opportunity of entering this virgin territory. Since this plan could best be achieved hrough the Middle East, she eagerly sought an ally in this area. The scheme became more obvious, Mr. Speaker, from the Soviet support given to Arab claims at the Bandung conference and the subsequent invitation to
[Mr. Crestohl.)
Colonel Nasser to visit Russia. If we add to this the recent stepped-up vigour of the Russian espousal, without qualification, of all Arab claims in the United Nations we have a clear-cut indication of her eagerness for an alliance with Egypt.
She then proceeds through the back-door use of Czechoslovakia, and provides arms to Egypt as well as personnel to train Egyptians in the use of aircraft, armaments and even submarines. These agents flock into Egypt, which is the front-door entrance to Africa, and from there they have easy access to the rest of that continent.
I have personally, Mr. Speaker, seen this infiltration at work in the heart of Africa while on a visit to Ethiopia last year. Communist literature was openly and brazenly displayed in Ethiopian ministerial offices. Embassies and compounds of legations close to Russian influence are amongst the largest in the country, and I wondered why. I heard more Russian spoken in Addis Ababa than any other European language. I was both astonished and fearful.
The menace, Mr. Speaker, is very great. Mr. John Gunther, noted author, has the following to say on the subject in his recently published book, "Inside Africa", and I quote briefly:
This fabulous continent is democracy's last frontier. It is the richest prize on earth and is defenceless in a period of cold war. Already there are areas where the communists are almost in a position to take over the nationalist movement. If communism is ever let loose on the intolerably poor and crushed in the submerged regions of the continent, a development might arise like that in China. And we will have lost Africa, as China and Asia have been lost.
To continue to be unrealistic in the face of this admonition, Mr. Speaker, is being ostrich-like in our need to recognize the studied determination and procedures of communism, not only to invade but to capture the whole of Africa. There is, for example, amongst many other manoeuvres the vigorous propaganda assault now actually in process seriously threatening the security of East Africa.
Cairo radio, in line with Egypt's new offensive, opened this assault dramatically about the middle of last October with these words spoken in Swahili, which is the language that reaches 20 million Africans, and I quote:
"The Mau Mau revolt, in which white arms defeated black courage, must be revived, not only in Kenya, but in the entire continent, and must go on until Africa belongs to the Africans."
Political observers, Mr. Speaker, familiar with communist tactics, openly declare that no subversive material aimed at Africa in the past has ever reached this blatant and

dangerous level. That, Mr. Speaker, is a very distressing fact, but unfortunately that is not all. Tanganyika and Uganda are also extremely jittery, and the white communities are exerting efforts to provide powerful antidotes over their radio stations at Dar-es-Salaam and Kampala.
If antidotes are necessary, it is a sign that the poison is already penetrating. But what is more disturbing, Mr. Speaker, than even that is that these deliberate and inflammatory appeals are also delivered in Arabic. It is no accidental coincidence that both the appeal in Swahali and in Arabic was launched immediately after Egypt concluded her arms deal with the Soviet.
It is abundantly clear that this is part of a bargain that Egypt entered into with the Soviet, and it becomes apparent that her campaign against the white man is the price she has to pay for the military aid she receives from Russia and her satellites.
It is my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that Egypt wants this military aid because Mr. Nasser, in his dream of becoming the Moslem Bismarck, has some aggressive ideas of his own, and Israel is being used only as a decoy for the purpose of securing armed power.
I foresee, for example, that apart from Egypt's desire to dominate the entire Arab world, as Nasser proclaimed the other day, one of the things she no doubt expects from her alliance with Russia is the immediate realization of her aim to acquire the Sudan, which is now in no position to resist Egypt's so-called protective invasion, especially in the face of her newly-acquired desert tanks and armaments. This would bring Russian influence to the borders of Ethiopia. With the pressure from both Egypt and Russia, Haile Selassie, in his desire to preserve his throne, would then be an easy victim for a deal. All this would place Russia strategically in a good position to advance her plan for a cold war invasion of Africa.
This program, Mr. Speaker, could never be realized by Russia without her finding a base on the African coast of the eastern Mediterranean, and this explains her anxiety for the alliance with Egypt. This also reveals to some degree the real dimensions of what appears to be an innocuous arms deal with Czechoslovakia. Newsweek of November 28, 1955, reports most disquieting information pointing a red arrow at the very heart of the Middle East itself all of which developed on the heels of this new alliance. And what do we find in the Middle East? Syria is on the verge of a red arms agreement. In Cairo, Egyptian and Soviet spokesmen declared that Saudi Arabia had already signed for the acquisition of communist arms and is now in the midst
External Affairs
of a Soviet-inspired bribery scandal causing disturbances in the country itself. Yemen, which is in a dispute with Great Britain over Aden, also seeks Soviet arms. Egypt offers Soviet arms to Jordan, one of Great Britain's hopes in the Middle East, and Jordan shows signs of succumbing to Egyptian pressures. There you see, Mr. Speaker, that the supply of arms to Egypt involves not just the supply of arms to Egypt but the supply of arms to every Arab country in the Middle East. I urge most cautious, profound and courageous consideration of all these facts. They are not trivial and show manifestations of being very foreboding and very dangerous.
I admit my inadequacies, Mr. Speaker, in not being as knowledgeable about these events as either Washington, London or Paris, but the pattern seems so clear that one does not have to be an expert to be frightened by these developments. In fact, the New York Times of October 15, 1955, very poignantly and frankly declared that when Mr. Dulles received the news that Russia was unloading Soviet bloc arms in the Middle East he himself had a conniption fit. The rest of the civilized world should certainly feel no better about it.
Our alarm is even more startling when we are told that near Alexandria on the Mediterranean, a vast area, consisting of tens of square miles, has been reserved for the gathering and conditioning of incalculable quantities of armaments including tanks, jet fighters, jet bombers and submarines. The section is cautiously guarded and looms as a jumping off point. In addition, Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of Russians in greatly increasing numbers swarming into Arab countries under various guises. The combination of these arms and agents in the Middle East is ominous and I think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that this procedure is painfully reminiscent of Russian tactics in North Korea and China. First she armed them and then sent in thousands of so-called experts and technicians and when they were good and ready catapulted them into a war.
It is puerile to believe that the Russians are providing such vast quantities of arms to the Egyptians solely for their defence against an assault by the tiny state of Israel. Let us not be duped by the Egyptian cry of "wolf". Israel, with a population of one and a half million and an area of a mere 8,000 square miles, by comparison with 50 million Arabs and an area of 2,600,000 square miles, does not merit the dubious compliment of having to provide against them the vast armaments, aircraft and submarines presently being gathered in Egypt.

External Affairs
Much larger game is the objective. The western world must recognize this quickly and promptly challenge it not merely by talk nor by appeasement and certainly not by sacrificing important human values and principles which form the cornerstone of our civilization.
The Arab fear of invasion by the tiny state of Israel and its handful of people is universally recognized as being ludicrous. The reverse is more likely and more threatening.
Israel lives under a sword of Damocles in the form of the constant Arab threat of annihilation. On January 9, 1954, King Saud called upon the Arab world to wage a holy war against Israel, and to sacrifice 10 million Arabs if necessary, in order to destroy it completely.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson) a few moments ago also referred to the students in Cairo who attend the oldest university in Cairo and the Moslem brotherhood who urge the Arabs to wage a holy war against Israel.
The Christian Century, in its editorial of January 20, 1954, challenged this inhuman exhortation in these terms:
This outburst sounded like the war cry of a savage, not the utterance of a responsible head of state. It should be rebuked and rebuked so effectively, that no more such wild counsel is heard from this, or similar sources.
In addition to this royal outburst the howl of a second, round has not been permitted by Egypt and other Arab states to subside for an instant.
Having only recently escaped from the greatest atrocities in history, the Israelis are horrified by the thought of further assaults. They are grateful to the United Nations for providing them a home after 2,000 years, and pray for the elementary human right to live in peace and security.
They cherish this little land, and it is only natural for them to resist to the last man, woman and child, any attempts to dislodge them from a single inch of it.
If they have to-and we pray to God that they will not have to-the Israelis will, as they did in 1948 and alone if necessary, again repel the war-crazed fanatics, fired by the cry of a holy war and nudged forward by a prowling and cunning bear.
The Israelis are not belligerent. They do not live by the sword and are religiously mindful of the remaining half of this prophetic admonition. They want to live in peace and they constantly proclaim their anxiety and willingness to negotiate a peace with the Arabs any time and anywhere. It is

the Arabs, on the other hand, who are intransigent, and even refuse to talk of peace.
The Israelis therefore are constantly kept on the defensive to preserve their little niche in the world, and, if they seek arms, they do so only to defensively meet the threats proclaimed daily by their surrounding neighbours. They are not in an arms race. If there is an arms race, let us recognize the mirage, since it is not between the Arabs and Israel, but is actually between communism and the democracies. That is far more menacing. Recognizing this danger quickly may preserve our Middle East position, hold intact the northern tier under the Baghdad pact, and prevent the whole continent of Africa from becoming communistic.
Can you therefore imagine, Mr. Speaker, my astonishment this afternoon when the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) introduced an amendment in which he asked that all shipments of arms to the Middle East be arrested or stopped? I think that the hon. member for Prince Albert has placed himself in a most disturbing paradoxical position. At one moment he pleads in terms that the state of Israel must be kept secure and in the next moment introduces an amendment asking that the means of preserving the state should be removed from them. He asks that the state be preserved and promptly proceeds to tie their hands behind their backs by allowing arms to go to only one destination in the Middle East, and that is to Egypt. I did not think that was very noble or very brave of the hon. gentleman. I was shocked at the amendment and at the position now taken by the party to which the hon. member belongs. He states clearly to me, and I am sure to all my co-religionists, not only in this country but everywhere, that the little state of Israel should be left helpless and without arms to defend itself if it should be necessary.
Actually I was more surprised by his amendment when he dodged a reply to the question put to him by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not know why he refused to make a reply, but he turned around and asked, "What has the government done?" I would like to tell the hon. member what this government has done. This government has done more for the establishment and preservation of the state of Israel than any other country in the whole world.
We see the Soviet union's plans: its plans for Africa, its plans for the Middle East. We recognize them. All we have been doing in the past-we western nations-is to resort to a process of wooing, appeasing and perhaps praying. We are now obviously wooing the Arab nations by offering them arms and

money, all in the hope that we may be able to win them away from their crafty Soviet suitor. The armaments we pour into Egypt- when I say "we", I am talking now of all the western nations-all these armaments, peculiarly enough, appear to be going into a common arms pool with the communists. The great question, of course, is: Will the arms out of this common pool be used for us or against us? The Soviets can take the risk. They have nothing to lose. But can we take the risk? To find the answer to this sphinx-like question, we have merely to glance at contemporary history.
Do we forget that when Rommel was at El Alamein on his way to Alexandria, the Arabs were already rolling out the red carpet of welcome for him? Is our memory so short that we forget the Mufti's sojourn with Hitler? Do we forget so quickly that, in gratitude for Great Britain's help in building and maintaining the Suez canal, Egypt, at the very first opportunity, pressed for her dismissal? Do we forget the pro-Nazi revolt in Iraq led by Raschid-Ali during the early part of the second world war, which was greatly distressing to the allies? Do we forget that the Arab countries, all of them, remained comfortably neutral during two world wars when the democratic way of life was threatened? And have the Arabs throughout history earned the reputation that they can be trusted? Their record in that regard is not a creditable one. In fact, it dates back thousands of years to when the prophet Isaiah proclaimed an admonition against trust in Egypt, in the following words, and I quote chapter 36, verse six:
Lo, thou trustest in the staff of this broken reed, on Egypt, whereupon if a man lean, it will go into his hand, and pierce it; so is Pharaoh King of Egypt to all that trust in him.
This is further supported by the fact that the Egyptians have now nudged Great Britain completely out of Egypt, notwithstanding the treaty condition that she will be readmitted in the event of apprehensive warfare, whatever that may mean. In my opinion, the United Kingdom will never voluntarily be readmitted to Egypt. Her departure was a cardinal blunder.
Disraeli foresaw the importance of the Suez canal and a strong British position in the Middle East. He gave that to the empire. He would now be writhing in anguish in his grave if he could see what has happened. From wherever Britain moved out, communism moved in. One shudders at the futility of a policy in the Middle East which lost for us links of empire and bastions of democracy, and reduced the stature of the 67509-47
External Affairs
United Kingdom in countries like India, Pakistan, the Suez, the Sudan, Cyprus and now Jordan. I am therefore astonished to find, even today, such an unrealistic approach to such painfully realistic problems.
Until the Egyptians disclosed Russia's tie-up with some Arab countries, the United Kingdom and the United States strained everything to hold Arab favour. This manoeuvring apparently called for the suppression of the real values in an alliance with Israel. These tactics may have been necessary, although I do not admit it, but now that the masks are off and we see the position and see where the Arabs are going, it is my respectful submission that to fail to make a show of strength and determination by including Israel in the western family would be a greater blunder than it was previously to suppress it. To proceed further by appeasement at this critical time is again unrealistic and a deplorable show of western weakness. It could well prove to be the blunder supreme that the west can make, and the appeasers may never be able to answer to destiny for their urging of it.
During the course of previous debates in this house, we have agreed that the most effective way to meet a Soviet challenge was by a show of strength and not by a show of weakness. Every time the west appeased- to use a colloquialism-we were taken for a ride, and we should by this time have learned our lesson.
If appeasement now is to take the form of attempting to throw the tiny state of Israel, or part of it, to the marauding Arabs, then I say it will not be as simple as some would have it, because the heroic people of Israel will not permit themselves to be Muniched into a Czechoslovakia. The irony of the situation is that appeasement will again have been resorted to in vain.
Let us recognize, even shamefacedly, that we are at this point, apart from a rebellious Cyprus, virtually left with the Baghdad pact alone and a prayer-if you will-that, despite the pressure exerted on some of its components, it will hold intact. If that, too, should not stand up-and it might not stand up-what remains? Virtually nothing, except Israel. This conclusion is being recognized more and more every day by western strategists.
Would it therefore not be most imprudent to miss the opportunity of availing ourselves of this additional safeguard? It is the only country in the Middle East that admittedly is western in every possible way and, because of that and its alliances with millions of brethren residing in western countries, Israel can be fully, completely and reliably depended upon. It has the best trained and

External Affairs
most disciplined army in the area and can yet prove to be our most reliable, trustworthy and able ally.
Let the. west fearlessly recognize this fact and declare to its allies of the Baghdad pact that it becomes urgent for the west to avail itself of Israel's position and strength, and emphasize that to do otherwise would definitely be shortsighted and dangerous, not only for the position of the west but also for the parties to the pact itself. Such a statement, Mr. Speaker, would tell the Arabs in no uncertain terms that we do not pussyfoot any longer in our determination to have peace in the Middle East. We must speak boldly and with firmness because until belligerent Arabs hear such a forthright declaration, made with grim determination, they are encouraged to gambit with stealthy and intriguing manoeuvres, including their threat to annihilate a million and a half people and, in their frenzy, launch a massacre that twentieth century civilization is anxious to live down. The western world must not remain silent any longer to this menacing talk lest it be considered an accessory to the fact resulting from its silence.
I would be loath Mr. Speaker to link this silence to the statement attributed to someone in Washington that Israel be written off as a noble experiment that failed. This is the sadistic utterance of an inhuman maniac, whoever he may be. No diplomatic manoeuvre, regardless of how great or important it may appear to be, could justify such premeditated and wholesale murder. It may suit the period of a Genghis Khan or an Attila but certainly not the enlightened and civilized twentieth century.
If Israel is an experiment that failed, then I say, Mr. Speaker, with horror and with shame, that the whole of our civilization is doomed to utter failure because I believe, that in the assessment by the Almighty of the actions and behaviour of men He recognizes values that are far more sacred and important than ruthless diplomatic expediencies.
I often wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether somewhere down the line the policy which the western powers have been following could not have been more skilful if it had been only a little more courageous and a little less influenced by vested interests.
The United Kingdom, the United States and France all have vested interests in the Middle East which they are anxious to preserve, and I believe that, in the very best of faith, then-assessment of the situation over the years may have been largely influenced by these interests, which could have coloured then-considerations as to the future and interfered
	' |
with their sober appreciation of wider horizons and the real human values.
Canada, on the other hand, which the world recognizes as the great arbiter and peace-seeking nation, has no direct or vested interests in that part of the world. Our diplomats enjoy the full confidence, respect and esteem of all the nations concerned and are therefore in the happy position of being able to see the situation objectively with open eyes and not through spectacles coloured or influenced by any vested or national interests. General Burns is already making a noble and valiant effort and would, no doubt, welcome support in his extremely difficult task.
It is, therefore, my submission, Mr. Speaker, that our country should, through its Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) and his experts, promptly assess this complex mid-eastern situation and dauntlessly interject its good offices to help return to sanity those countries who stand on the brink of war and jeopardize the security of the entire world.
Careful study should be given to the fact that the vast majority of 50 million Arabs, because of their lack of education and miserable living conditions, are fertile for communist indoctrination. In all haste, therefore, the United Nations should provide substantial annual funds, either through a Marshall plan arrangement, through the Colombo plan or through any other international device, so that the standards of living of nomad Arab millions can be brought to some parallel with modern civilization. This will enable them to understand that the days of slavery are past, feudalism is archaic and that peace is the greatest gift human beings possess.
I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this might be a long process, whilst prompt action is necessary to arrest an impending conflagration. This, no doubt, partly explains the urgent conference between Sir Anthony Eden and President Eisenhower, as well as the hectic activities in Washington and London to woo Nasser away from communist enticements and thereby retain Arab support for the west. While I realize the importance of this, I also realize that it is even more important to Nasser himself. In the family of free nations he can retain for the Arabs their freedom and their independence but, as allies of Russia, they will become quickly submerged as satellites. Their leaders will become Russian puppets and their people, by an ironic quirk of history, may be exposed to the danger of possibly building twentieth century pyramids under the lash of communist taskmasters. I hope Colonel Nasser and his

advisers can see that far ahead and realize that the Arab nations are now themselves seriously at the crossroads.
We should, therefore, sincerely urge them to take a new look at their position and reconsider their relationship with their neighbours and the state of Israel in the light of the new dangers they themselves now face. They have, because of their persistent intransigence, already slipped into the communist quagmire from which they can, only with the co-operation of the west, still extricate themselves.
I am convinced that they are fully alert to their dangerous position but are crafty enough to still attempt to trade on our fears and our policy to appease. They must be made to know that this no longer exists. Consequently, now is the opportune time for the west to take an honourable and unwavering position.
We should tell Nasser bluntly: We want you on our side. We will help you retain your independence and guarantee your borders. We will help you financially in your program for economic and social reforms to raise the standard of living of your people. But we insist on having peace in the Middle East and you must stop this nonsense of threatening the annihilation of a state set up by the United Nations whose authority you must respect. We want you to know that we will never permit the action you threaten against Israel nor the creation of a second Egyptian bondage.
I would, Mr. Speaker, oppose with every ounce of my strength any form of approach that would say one word less. Under no circumstances must the free nations enter into a settlement based on fear, immoral diplomatic expediency, vested interests or appeasement of any type. That is the kind of quicksand on which our relations with the Arabs have unfortunately existed in the past. It has not only been weak and uncertain but it was historically and morally wrong. It has, moreover, proven to be a poor diplomatic assessment and has exploded in the faces of those who fostered it. Our so-called Middle East experts in London and Washington are now bewildered and running for cover. They should, therefore, alter their approach and completely abandon any form of appeasement or sacrifice if they seek a durable peace in the Middle East.
I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that in a sober assessment of the communist danger facing the Arab countries Colonel Nasser will realize that the advice of the free nations is honestly and sincerely given and is in the very best interests of all the Arab peoples. Contemporary history gives him good reason to 67509-474
External Affairs
appreciate the seriousness which motivates western statements because he no doubt remembers that, within the memory of this generation, the Arab people enjoyed great munificence, not from communism but from the free nations of the world. They liberated the Arabs from Turkish domination. They restored their kingdoms after the first world war. They provided them with western "know-how". They welcomed them into the family of nations and poured vast fortunes into their countries.
Moreover, it should also be emphasized that most of the Arab nations were established and recognized by international law and councils similar to the United Nations. If their own status as free and independent nations is to be respected, they must likewise respect the status of any other country established by the same authority.
The safeguarding of mutual rights and the maintenance of mutual respects are basic between free and democratic nations. With this guiding beacon in the hands of the United: Nations, I am hopeful that it can prevail upon Arab nations and the state of Israel, as urged last week by our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson), to sit together at a round table to discuss a modus: vivendi.
I emphasize most solemnly and fervently, Mr. Speaker, that those who enter into peace negotiations with truth, good will and righteousness, will surely emerge from such a conference with justice, glory and dignity.


George Randolph Pearkes: Mr. Speaker, during the time at my disposal this evening I intend to direct my remarks to the amendment and the subamendment which have been moved. As you will recall, the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and it reads as follows:
That all the words alter "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
in view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries in that area not within the NATO alliance; and also condemns the government for the lack of candour with which the matter has been dealt with in this house.
Once again the opposition has to take the initiative. As reported at page 522 of Hansard the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) stated: ... X do not think it would be fair for me to consider that the debate in the house on that matter-
He was referring to the debate on the shipment of arms to the Middle East.
-has ended.

External Affairs
Despite that statement by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) skilfully avoided touching upon the subject during his speech this afternoon. Had it not been originally for the questions which were asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Stewart) and by other members on this side of the house, I very much doubt whether the country would ever have heard of the shipment of these arms to Egypt and to Israel. The questions were raised by the opposition and I think that the members on this side of the house deserve credit for having brought this despicable dealing before the public eye at this time.
Reporters who first carried the story, after the question had been raised in this house, carried out their investigations and saw equipment being loaded at the Pugsley docks in the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, in the Egyptian freighter, Star of Assuan. They reported that aircraft and military vehicles were being loaded. In spite of the reported statements of government officials at the port of Saint John that this was only general cargo, the investigation was proceeded with. When questions were directly asked by myself in this house as to whether any equipment had been shipped over the weekend, the ministers had no knowledge of any equipment being sent. It was not until several days afterwards that the Secretary of State for External Affairs corroborated the reports. He corroborated those on January 24. Immediately following that speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) analysed it and described it as serving principally to expose the fumbling and floundering way in which the government has handled this issue since it arose in this house. Then he went on to say that the issue had been characterized by evasion, want of candour, ineptitude and incompetence or a mixture of all four.
Then again this afternoon the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) castigated the government for the way in which it had dealt with this situation. The question still remains: Why did it take the government so long to come clean and to make a clean breast of this extremely ugly situation? In fact, anything which has been said on the government side has only underlined the confusion and the incompetence of this ill-timed action. As has already been stated this afternoon, on January 10 an article appeared in the magazine Look over the name of
[Mr. Pearkes.l
the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In it is found this sentence:
In the Middle East war could flare up any day between Israel and the Arab states. The soviets are fanning the embers with arms shipments to Egypt.
I suggest that the ministers and the government have already added their little blow to fanning the embers of that possible conflagration which might break out there. It is against this background that we must analyse this shipment of arms to the Middle East. Against this background, when war might flare up at any moment, this government permitted the export of arms. It was certainly at a most ill-timed period. In fact, it was permitted at an extraordinarily dangerous time.
The shipments were first authorized last July. Ministerial approval was granted. During the last two or three weeks it has been extremely difficult to ascertain whether that approval was given by the cabinet, by three members of the cabinet or by one member of the cabinet himself. The description of the proceedings that was given this afternoon would make one think that perhaps only one member of the cabinet had any knowledge of the fact, although the Prime Minister stated that the cabinet accepted full responsibility for it. However, when this authorization was granted last July, although the conditions in the Middle East were extraordinarily unsettled, there was little indication that any war might be considered to be imminent. But this year, in this month when the shipments were allowed to leave this country, you can only say that conditions in the Middle East were inflamed and, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already said, that war might flare up at any time.
During this period since July until now, the government did nothing about these shipments of arms. They realized that the situation in the Middle East was deteriorating. Did they tighten up their administration? Did they make inquiries into whether or not it was wise to send arms to this sensitive area, with the situation rapidly deteriorating? No, they just forgot that they had authorized the shipment of any arms at all. If it had not been for the questions which we on this side of the house asked I think that their forgetfulness would have been heartily welcomed by the government as a whole. There had been no check made. There had been no attempt to revise the export permits on equipment which was being sent from this country to the Middle East.
On January 25, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) gave a list of

the equipment which had been sent. There were three Harvard training aircraft to Egypt, the first of a consignment of 15 planes which had been authorized. These Harvard training planes were used and recognized as the best type of plane in which to train pilots for service aircraft. There were some spare parts as well as those three planes which were sent.
Then, Israel had been sent anti-tank equipment; 75 millimeter shells; tracks and spare parts for tanks. Let us remember that private traders were sending Valentine and Sherman tanks from England through France and Belgium to the Middle East. There were also 25-pounder field pieces such as the type we used during the second world war, and still a very effective weapon. There were machine guns, always convenient and handy for certain types of raiders and guerillas to carry. There were 3-7 anti-aircraft guns as well as some other items. The total came to over $2,800,000 during the last two years. You might say that those figures would not indicate there were any very large quantities of these weapons and ammunition sent. While the quantities sent have not been made available, it should be remembered that this equipment was considered by us to be obsolescent service equipment. One can well imagine, therefore, that this equipment was sold at bargain prices.
This equipment is considered by us to be obsolescent, that is not the type of equipment that our Canadian troops will require either for the defence of this country or to fulfil their NATO commitments in western Europe. We are thinking in terms of large numbers of troops equipped with modern arms, and what may be obsolescent to us may be considered a most effective weapon by other people who are not planning to have a force which would act as a deterrent to another world war. These machine guns, tanks and field artillery may be very effective weapons when used against tribesmen in the desert. Tracks and spare parts for tanks may be very useful in repairing tanks which have been shipped from elsewhere and which were demilitarized before the private traders sent them. It is bad enough for private traders to be trafficking in arms, but it is humiliating when we realize that our Canadian government has been trafficking in arms.
Some years ago this country was shocked by a series of articles which dealt with the arms trade as carried on by private manufacturers. They were entitled, "merchants of death". Is our government going to accept that title from now on if they are going to continue shipping arms? These articles on the
External Affairs
merchants of death showed quite clearly that there was plenty of evidence to prove that wars, particularly what may be described as minor wars, were fomented in order to increase the sale of arms. It would be farfetched to suggest that the government has any such thought, but we must remember that this government is selling our surplus equipment and taking money in return for lethal weapons which could be used against human beings. What is more despicable than anything else is that this government has stooped to sell to both sides in the dispute.
Of course the quantities have been limited and to date there is no question that the quantities which have been sent could upset the balance of arms in the Middle East. It is the principle of the government selling lethal weapons in a highly sensitive area and at a very critical time which is repugnant to me and I think repugnant to the majority of the people of Canada. The minister said it was not the policy to put a complete embargo on arms shipments except to the Sino-Soviet bloc and other countries, if any, where there was a threat to our own security. Well, from what point is that threat going to come? If war breaks out in the Middle East it is hardly likely that we, as a member of the United Nations, will be able to keep out of such a conflict. Why not put an embargo at this time on the shipment of arms to these sensitive areas? I have no quarrel about the shipment of arms to our allies in NATO or the other commonwealth countries. But why should we be shipping arms to every small country in sensitive areas?
We were told today that there were 34 such sensitive areas in the world today. It is all very well to utter pious statements that the shipments are not permitted to sensitive areas if they are of such a character that they might increase any temptation to commit aggression. But we are supplying machine guns, perhaps to trigger-happy tribesmen or nervous men on outpost duty who may very easily be tempted to commit an overt act.
It was only last December that a raid was carried out in Galilee. According to the United Nations report, no fewer than 41 Syrians were killed. Is it really necessary for us to inflame or fan these smouldering embers? When nations are facing each other and there is a possibility of war breaking out, it is not much use blaming them for getting arms from wherever they can. No; it is with the suppliers of those arms that the main responsibility rests.
At the present time we have no particular commitments with Israel any more than we have commitments with other Middle Eastern

External Affairs
powers. We have heard about the defensive grouping in the Middle East, which I believe was created by the United States, and that grouping includes Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Iraq. Iraq, close to the borders of Israel, is regarded by Israel as being allied with the other Arab powers. One is not blaming Israel, and I do not blame Egypt. Egypt has become ;a leader of the Arab countries. And while Israel sees Egypt as the mainspring of the Arab efforts to prevent her survival, Egypt sees Israel as an intruder and potential aggressor brought into the area by the western powers. Egypt contends that it is Israel, with its large number of new settlers brought in from Europe, brought into a small and constricted area, that is responsible for the plight of 900,000 Arab refugees who have been forced to cross the border and who are today living in refugee camps in a degrading condition, both physically and morally. Israel is regarded not only as an intruder but also as a potential aggressor. As Israel's population grows, Egypt fears the new state will need more land, and where can Israel find it except just across her borders in Arab countries. She can find it only by expanding into her neighbour's territory, and so the argument runs.
If there is no war today, the Arab states must be ready to resist Israeli aggression tomorrow. And while Egypt talks of potential aggression by Israel, Egypt is suspected of aggressive motives by the Israelis. It is a tense and difficult situation, a situation which we should refuse to aggravate and, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) has said, we should be most anxious to find a peaceful solution to this problem. Peaceful solutions have been offered. Did Mr. Dulles, in his address before the council of foreign relations last August, not offer a guarantee, to be sponsored by the United Nations, to both Israel and the Arab states against aggression, and did Sir Anthony Eden, in his speech before the Lord Mayor's banquet at the Guildhall, as reported in the magazine, Current History not do the same thing? These words are given as the exact text of his address:
Her Majesty's government and, I believe, the United States government and perhaps other powers too, would be prepared to give a formal guarantee to both sides; and that might bring real confidence and security at last. And our countries would also offer substantial help, financial and other, over this tragic problem of the refugees.
All this we will do.
Surely, that is a greater deterrent against the possibility of war breaking out between those two countries than supplying of arms to both of them, which can only be considered as creating a possibility of some sudden and overt act.

I should like to know what this government has done by way of offering a guarantee similar to that offered by the United States and by Great Britain. Are we prepared to play our part, not only by sending troops should war break out, but by letting it be known beforehand that if war does break out we will send troops? That is where the deterrent comes, having it clearly said beforehand what we will do. Has this government come out and stated what it will do? No. It forgets; it fumbles and it goes on shipping arms to both sides. I hope that this will not be considered as concluding the debate on the shipment of arms. I hope that before this debate is over the Secretary of State for External Affairs will renew the pledge which the Prime Minister gave, that for the time being no more arms will be shipped to either country, or to any area which is described as a sensitive area, unless that shipment takes place definitely to NATO, or commonwealth countries. Let us put an end to this trafficking in arms to countries which are non-NATO countries and countries which do not belong to our commonwealth. I repeat, I hope that before this debate is over the Secretary of State for External Affairs, or some other member of the government, will renew the pledge which was given the other day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the hon. member a question before he finishes? I am very anxious to be clear about the last remark he addressed to the government? Did I understand him to advocate that there should be an embargo against all arms shipments by Canada to members, say, of the Baghdad pact, Iran, Iraq?


George Randolph Pearkes: I said, to non-NATO and to non-commonwealth countries, and I will add any other country with which we have not a definite alliance.


Mr. Donald D. Carrick (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, it is nearly ten o'clock; do you wish me to continue?


An hon. Member:: Go ahead.


An hon. Member:: Hurry up.


Some hon. Members:: Proceed.


Donald D. Carrick: I rise to take part in this debate because this is an occasion when the life of a nation is at stake. Hon. members on the other side, members of the C.C.F. party, scoff at this suggestion. It is very easy for us to sit in this chamber where we are safe and secure and to be unaware of the danger in which a small country of a million and a half people are living under the shadow of the sword.

I want to congratulate the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) upon the excellent statement of the government's policy in relation to the Middle East which he gave last Tuesday. Today we had the benefit of his statement of government policy in relation to other parts of the world. The clarity, comprehensiveness and balance of the statement indicates why the hon. member is held in such high esteem by people in all parts of the world.
I was shocked, Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) moved an amendment in this manner. I want to read that amendment to the house:
That ... in view of the present critical situation in the Middle East, this house expresses its strong disapproval of the government's policy of authorizing the shipment of munitions of war to countries in that area not within the NATO alliance-
That is the part I want to deal with. I say I was shocked because it constituted a refusal of help to Israel in her hour of need. I never believed that the erstwhile great Conservative party would ever adopt a policy of that kind.
I was equally shocked by the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) because in principle his amendment affirmed the amendment made by the spokesman for the Conservative party. I say it did this in principle because the amendment was prospective and following the portion I read it added these words:
"without at the same time making sure that peace in that area would be guaranteed either by the United Nations or by the powers that signed the tripartite agreement of 1950, namely the United States, the United Kingdom and France."
It was obvious from the remarks of the hon. gentleman that what he was contemplating was the future shipment of arms because he did not want to bind the government's hands. He affirmed the amendment of the hon. member for Prince Albert that this house disapproved the shipment of arms to Israel.
Now what do the amendments mean in substance? The Secretary of State for External Affairs in his statement of a few days ago stated that in 1954 and in 1955 the total shipment of arms of this government to Israel amounted to $2,067,685.19 and to Egypt $771,121. That is the amount of arms shipped that is being disapproved of by the amendments laid before this house.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that while the amendment is limited to that small sum the whole question that is raised in this house at the present time is the shipment of arms to the Middle East and it is on that basis that I want to deal with the question.
External Affairs
It might be useful if I were to say a few words about the history of Israel. Hon. members will recall that the Balfour declaration was made December 2, 1917. It provided for the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Subsequently, after the termination of the first world war, a British mandate was set up on July 22, 1922, under the auspices of the league of nations and it was under the British mandate that Palestine carried on. In November 1947-I am not sure of these dates although I believe they are fairly accurate-the British government reached the decision that it would no longer carry on the mandate of Palestine and the United Nations resolved to set up the state of Israel under the partition agreement. I believe the partition was to take effect in the summer of 1948. It was in December 1947 that the incursion of the Arab bands began into Israel, the part that is occupied by the people who now constitute the Israeli people, and in the course of 1948 six Arab states took up arms against the people of Israel. There were Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. That was a fight to the death for the people of Israel. They defended themselves in a way that won the admiration of all men in the free world. The result was that they forced Egypt and her allies to seek a truce and it was, I believe, in August 1949 that the armistice agreement was concluded. The result of what I have recounted to this point was that the state of Israel was established.
What has happened since 1949? Egypt has consistently refused to recognize Israel as a sovereign state. She would have no direct negotiations with Israel and any negotiations which occurred were conducted through a third party unless she was placed in circumstances such as the United Nations council when it was absolutely necessary for her to face Israel when she would have no other alternative.
The second major development to note during that period was that Egypt, through her ally Jordan, has consistently made attacks on the Israelis across the border into Israel. One need only take a look at the map to see what this means. It is a very easy matter for the Arabs, through Jordan, which crosses into Palestine and leaves a very narrow corridor, to make border attacks upon Israel, and since 1949 Egypt with her accomplices has continually made attacks upon the Israelis.


Some hon. Members:: It is ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: For some time now, as a matter of fact ever since the conclusion of

External Affairs
the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, I have wanted to present to the house a statement on the rule regarding the reading of speeches. I have not yet delivered that statement because the day following the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne was the first private members' day. Friday was the first government day and I hesitated again on Monday to take any time from private members. We have now reached Tuesday and an important debate on external affairs is proceeding which is to be resumed tomorrow. I do not wish to delay the possibility of having hon. members look at the document and if it meets with the approval of hon. members I would ask their consent to have this text printed in the Votes and Proceedings. If I obtain the consent of hon. members to do this I will not read it tonight and hon. members will have an opportunity to look at it as soon as it is published. If they later wish to make
comments upon the statement I would imagine that arrangements could be made to that end through the usual channels.
May I point out that this statement recites the rule as established by the authorities on procedure and also the practice of this house under it. Suggestions are made. I do not contend for one moment that the suggestions that are herein contained will produce a cure-all as far as the reading of speeches is concerned, but I hope that these suggestions will be received in the spirit in which they have been prepared, namely, with the object of the improvement of our debate and thus for the good of parliament.
If it meets with the approval of hon. members, I would suggest that the text be printed in Votes and Proceedings. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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