Mr. Solon E. Low (Peace River):

I should

like to ask the Prime Minister if at some time in the future he will give us the name of the

Supply-External Affairs government department that has possession of the records of Aero Timber Products Limited, a former crown company that went out of business in 1945.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

I will have the matter looked up and will try to make the information available to the hon. member.

Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):

should like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Resources or to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that there is a desperate shortage of coal, briquettes, etc., in Canada, is the government doing anything to facilitate the production and transportation of coal to the cities and towns in Ontario whose people are on ration at the present time?

We are trying to get you gas.

Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):

I understand that a similar question was asked some days ago, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) answered that the railways were doing their best to give priority to the localities in which, from their surveys, there was the greatest possibility of shortage of coal.

Mr. Fraser:

The situation has become much more serious in the last week, as a result of this cold weather.

Mr. St. Laurent:

And the coal miners in the United States seem to have become much more stubborn.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Dion in the chair.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):

I welcome, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity that this occasion affords of making the customary statement on international affairs generally, in order to initiate a debate on the subject. I welcome the opportunity because it is, as all hon. members will agree, a matter of the highest importance that the people of this country, whose future has been and will be so deeply affected by international developments, should be kept as fully informed as possible as to the general policy now being pursued by their government in this field.

The best way of keeping our people so informed, apart from discussions such as we are having today and discussions before our committee on external affairs, is of course to make as many facts as possible available to them in as accessible a form as possible. That is being done in a number of ways by the department over which I have the honour to preside. On Tuesday last, for instance, I tabled in the house the annual report of the Department of External Affairs, which gives a brief but I think comprehensive review of the activities of the department in the calendar year 1949, and makes it unnecessary for me to give at this time a detailed review of those activities.

The department also publishes annually a report entitled "Canada and the United Nations." That report for 1949 will be tabled shortly. The volume contains not only a review of the activities of the United Nations and Canadian participation in them, but also includes a broad selection of relevant documents. It will show, if anything is needed to show, Mr. Chairman, how seriously we take our membership in the United Nations. I will also show the contribution we are trying to make to the organization which still remains, and will remain, the foundation of our international policy, and in the long run our best hope for peace.

The department also publishes a monthly bulletin entitled "External Affairs", which is circulated pretty widely, and also texts of treaties and publications on international affairs generally, as well as reference papers and material of that kind. Thus we are trying to give the people of the country, as well as members of this house, as much information on external affairs as we can. But it may be said-in fact it has been said on previous occasions in this house-that this is merely information about what we have done; that we should give more information to the house and to the public about what we are doing, what we propose to do, and why. Up to a point, of course, Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. At the same time, as I have tried to point out before, you cannot effectively carry on delicate diplomatic negotiations by giving a sort of running account of the details of those negotiations as they are going on. We should of course make quite clear in advance the principles which guide us in these discussions. We should give the details of the negotiations when we can, and we should always give the result of these negotiations to the public. I think we do try to do that, Mr. Chairman.

In my review today I will not devote much of my time, indeed possibly any of my time, to commonwealth affairs-not because I do no* appreciate their importance, but because

I attempted to discuss them in relation to the commonwealth conference at Colombo. Nor do I intend to devote very much of my time to Far Eastern affairs, for the same reason. But I cannot let this occasion pass without answering, or attempting to answer, one or two questions which were asked me last night by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green), which deal with the Far East.

In respect to one of these questions I think the hon. member misunderstood what I tried to say last week in the discussion on this subject. Last night in referring to the commonwealth consultative committee, he said that I had made no statement as to whether or not we would join that committee. But I hoped that I had made it clear the other day, Mr. Chairman, that if and when an invitation comes from the Australian government-I think we have not received it yet

to join the meeting in Canberra, Which will be devoted to this subject, we shall be very glad indeed to accept it and be represented at the meeting or on the committee if one is set up at that time.

The hon. member was also critical of our lack of leadership in regard to a Pacific pact. I attempted to deal with that matter in my statement last November 18 on the external affairs estimates. I pointed out at that time that the situation in the Pacific in regard to a regional pact of this kind was certainly not the same as the situation in the Atlantic, which had made desirable and necessary, the signing of the North Atlantic pact. My view in that regard was not weakened, but indeed was confirmed by the recent commonwealth meeting at Colombo. If we had taken the lead in regard to this matter-we should not of course hesitate to take leadership when the occasion demands it-we would have found that at least two of the countries most directly concerned with regional security in the Pacific, namely, the United Kingdom and India, would not have been able to support our lead, or at this time support the idea of a Pacific regional pact. Also we knew then, as we know now, that the United States would not be able to participate at this time in negotiations leading up to that kind of pact. One reason for that attitude on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom is no doubt the fact that a conference for this purpose, Mr. Chairman, would certainly have to include China and the U.S.S.R., if they were willing to accept the invitation to participate. It would be somewhat embarrassing to issue an invitation to China at this moment to a meeting of that kind. If the invitation were being issued by the government of the United Kingdom it might be addressed to a different post office than that to which it would be 55946-28

Supply-External Affairs directed if it were to be issued by the government of the United States. And if it were being issued by the government of Canada it might be addressed to a different post office in the future than that to which it would be directed if we issued the invitation now. Therefore there are obviously practical difficulties in the way of calling a Pacific conference to draw up a Pacific regional pact.

When I say that, I do not wish to have it understood that the government is opposed to the idea of a regional pact for the Pacific. If and when the circumstances should make it desirable, we would give that matter the same kind of consideration as we gave to the idea of a North Atlantic pact.

In a review of international affairs, no matter how brief, it is not possible to ignore completely international economic questions, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, in this field it is not easy to know where political questions end and economic ones begin. The importance of sound economic and social policies in our relation to communism and to the communist states is obvious, because our strongest long-run defence against communism is wise and progressive social and economic policies. The same importance attaches to the economic relationships between the free democratic states. Economic co-operation along the right lines can and should bring us closer together. The lack of such co-operation can divide friendly states. There are signs now that, if we are not careful, our unity and ability to work together may be weakened by international economic difficulties.

If, for instance, we let the free world freeze into dollar and sterling areas, between which trade relations and commercial intercourse become difficult, that might ultimately prejudice political relationships. And so we are becoming, all of us, I think, more conscious than ever of these international economic difficulties as we realize that the post-war dollar assistance program may run out before the countries which have been assisted have recovered from the destruction and the dislocations of the war to a point where they can balance by their own efforts their trade with more fortunate countries such as Canada at a satisfactory level. What should be done in these circumstances by all of the countries concerned, and not merely by our own, is probably the most important question in the whole field of international economic affairs today. My hon. friends opposite keep emphasizing that economic and trade difficulties are increasing. They criticize the government because we have not done more to remove them-especially because we have done so little, as they put it, to maintain and develop trade between Canada and the sterling area.

Supply-External Affairs I think, Mr. Chairman, that they minimize the external problems which have caused these difficulties and maximize the alleged deficiencies of the government, its sins of omission and commission in dealing with them. Yet, while inveighing against the government, what remedy do they suggest? At the present time, as I understand it, their principal proposal is a commonwealth economic conference, as a possible cure for trade ills from which we may be suffering.

Well, we have had a good many commonwealth meetings during the last couple of years, and many of them-indeed most of them-have concerned trade. But hon. members opposite say that these meetings have been merely the concern of peregrinating, perambulating representatives, acting on their own by sporadic individual efforts. But what we want now, they go on to say, is a full-dress, large-scale commonwealth economic conference of the 1932 variety, with everybody there, to discuss everything-not merely the minister for external affairs in Ceylon drinking tea, but everybody, in London, selling food-and, according to the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton), even discussing questions of immigration and emigration. In short, bigger and better conferences, where decisions will be taken on the spot, possibly by a sort of imperial super-cabinet conference.

Well, I suggest that our way is better, where, in addition to these formal conferences -and they are of course desirable at times- ministers concerned, after full discussion in cabinet, where policy is agreed upon, meet, whenever occasion requires it, their opposite numbers in London or elsewhere to try to solve particular problems by arrangements which are then ratified by the respective governments. And in between such meetings, periodic conferences are held of the standing Anglo-Canadian trade committee, which consists of high officials. Of course there is also contact maintained every day in other ways between commonwealth governments on these questions.

Let us look at the record in this respect. In the last two years Canada has participated in four general international economic conferences, five commonwealth economic and trade meetings, three tripartite trade discussions in which the United Kingdom was involved, as well as four international trade and economic meetings called for various purposes.

I suggest that the remedy is not through conferences, though they can help very greatly at times. Nor is the remedy, I suggest, through the waving of a magic wand over

IMr. Pearson.]

Supply

External Affairs reasonably sure that these sinister plans will not have any success in our own country, even though they may deceive and confuse some sincere and well-intentioned people.

Communist plans in Europe have also to some extent been frustrated by their own crude and violent tactics. The workers, even the communist workers, are getting tired of being forced into political strikes and sabotage by a little group of Moscow-appointed leaders who always put the directive of the Kremlin before the interests of their own country and of the working class. While the communists are still strong in some of these western European countries, I think their game is becoming more and more apparent to the people. There are indications of this tendency in the defeat of the communists in the elections in Finland, and in the complete elimination of the communist candidates in the recent election in the United Kingdom.

No better evidence, in fact, could be found of the greater strength of the democratic forces in the western world than the present position of the communist party in countries which have free elections. From the high point of their influence in the period immediately following the war, these parties have rapidly diminished in numbers and in strength. This change was not brought about by suppression or persecution. The communists have been left to the judgment of the electors, and only when they have taken illegal action to betray their country, or to disturb the peace, have they suffered penalties under the law. This confidence in the free processes of democracy has, I think, been justified.

In the United Kingdom, for instance, during the recent election the communists were allowed to participate fully in the campaign. They were given free time on the government radio. They were given every opportunity to win votes. They made every kind of insidious appeal for such votes, from demanding higher wages for all, immediately, to pandering to the lowest form of anti-American prejudice. But what happened? By the will of the electors no single communist, nor communist sympathizer, has been returned to the British House of Commons. They polled an infinitesimal proportion of the vote and the great majority of them lost their deposits. Here is good evidence that in the face of outside danger, people in the free world can close their ranks.

On the other hand, in the dark spaces behind the iron curtain conditions get worse and the Soviet government is attempting to seal off every possible contact between the unfortunate peoples of those satellite countries and the outer free world. Not the smallest glimmer of western light is now allowed

to penetrate. Countries like Czechoslovakia, with its old parliamentary traditions, its great cultural heritage, its long-standing connections with the west, are to be put into permanent quarantine against the infection of freedom. So great is the nervousness of the Kremlin and those who take the Kremlin's orders in Prague, that even the normal social friendliness of two junior members of our legation staff towards their acquaintances in that city is regarded as dangerous and subversive. Charges have to be trumped up against them so that they can be expelled from the country. Against action of that kind we have, of course, means of retaliation which we shall certainly not hesitate to use against any country which invites and deserves it.

This communist policy of isolation and expulsion is revealing. It throws a sombre light on the fear which haunts the rulers of the Soviet union that the countries which they have drawn or forced into their orbit, realizing that their national interests are being sacrificed to Moscow, may react as Yugoslavia has already reacted. Hence the repeated purges of the personnel of these governments. Hence the series of monstrous trials and forced confessions and savage sentences in Budapest, Sofia, Bucharest, Warsaw and Prague. Hence the accusations of espionage and plotting against western diplomatic missions and individual western nationals in these countries. One must feel the deepest sympathy for the peoples of Soviet satellite countries whose governments are being compelled by Moscow to carry out policies so plainly contrary to their national interests. But I suggest the lesson of these events is not going unnoticed on this side of the iron curtain, where many waverers in many countries will hesitate before committing themselves to communism when they have such abundant evidence that it is being used as a facade for the new Russian imperialism.

In combating these dangers one of our greatest sources of strength remains the United Nations, where they can be publicly exposed, and the North Atlantic treaty, under which we can defend ourselves collectively against the aggression which might result from them. This treaty, I am glad to say- and the Minister of National Defence may and probably will have more to say about this matter when his estimates are introduced- is now a going concern, though very much remains to be done.

Since the last session of parliament the defence and military committees have met in Paris to approve programs of the military production and supply board and the defence financial and economic committee, as well as the broad principles on which defence planning by the various regional groups can be

carried on. Since the meetings in Paris, problems of military production and supply and financial questions concerned with the implementation of the North Atlantic treaty have been under investigation by the appropriate committees, and planning has now begun in the various regional groups. We are getting down to the detailed problems of working out an effective system of collective defence for the north Atlantic region.

As planning for military production and supply under the North Atlantic organization gets under way-and it is now under way- account should of course be taken of the needs of specialization in production and of the availability of productive capacity in all the north Atlantic nations. Means must also be found for overcoming existing difficulties which impede the transfer of equipment and supplies among the north Atlantic nations so as to permit the maximum use of their productive capacities. Solution of these difficulties is necessary if full advantage is to be taken, for instance, of Canada's present and potential productive capacity by the north Atlantic countries. The responsibilities of membership under the North Atlantic treaty cannot of course be discharged merely by setting up committees or staffs of experts for research and planning, however useful this may be. Such responsibilities can only be fulfilled by the governments and the peoples concerned.

Under the mutual aid and self-help articles of the treaty we in Canada are committed to participation in this collective enterprise in the manner in which such participation will be most effective. But until investigation of the needs of our partners is more complete, and until military planning in detail is further advanced, it would be premature, I suggest, to predict the appropriate form and scale of our participation. It will of course have to be related to the capacities and requirements of our economy and the economies of all the other signatories.

I should like to conclude the brief mention I have made of this particular subject by quoting a paragraph from a very significant book entitled "Modern Arms and Free Men", by Dr. Vannevar Bush, in which he said:

The race-

He is referring to the race for security, indeed the race for survival.

-can be lost, as all long races that depend upon man's endurance can be lost, either by doing too little or by trying to do too much too soon.

He went on to say:

It will profit us little to have stocks of bombs and planes and then to bring our governmental and industrial systems crashing down about our ears. This is a long, hard race we are embarked upon. We had better settle into harness for the long pull and mark well how we use our resources.

Supply-External Affairs

The world situation has been changed, not only by the developments which I have attempted to sketch briefly, but also by the realization that the perils of the atomic age will increase through the manufacture of atomic weapons of ever-increasing destructiveness, culminating, if it is culmination, in the so-called H bomb. On this question- and reference has already been made to it in the house during the present session-I suggest that our policy as to atomic weapons should be twofold. On the one hand, we of the free world must continue to strive by every means possible-and I hope to elaborate on this somewhat in a moment-for that kind of international agreement for the effective control of atomic energy that will give us some real chance of security against the horrible possibility of atomic warfare. On the other hand, so long as the danger of such warfare remains, we together with friendly states with whom we can co-operate must do our best to see that we do not lag behind in the development of knowledge and skill in the field of atomic energy. It is important also to convince, if that is possible, those with whom we find it difficult to co-operate that atomic weapons will never be used by us for any aggressive purpose.

The hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Knight) said the other night, in what I considered to be a very thoughtful speech:

Somehow or other the people of the world will have to get together and solve this problem.

He was referring to the atomic problem. He also said in the same speech: "We must learn somehow or other to break that cycle" which is preventing results. "Somehow or other"-but how? He asked for some reassurance on these matters which would be a renewal of faith, and he was disappointed that I had not been able to give him such reassurance in my earlier statement. To be perfectly frank, reassurance is not easy in the light of present circumstances, but I know he can be assured, as can all other hon. members of the house, that so far as the government is concerned we will do our best and not lag behind in the search for a solution to this problem.

When a man finds himself struggling against a blizzard, a moment comes when because of fatigue and despair he longs to lie down, relax and die. There are times, Mr. Chairman, when we must all feel as though, in the international field, we were pushing through a bitter and blinding blizzard. But it would be fatal to yield to the temptation merely to sit it out, just as it would be fatal to yield to the temptation to panic and frantically rush in new directions without any knowledge of where they may lead. So far as Canada is concerned-and I

Supply

External Affairs am sure we all agree on this-I know there will never be any lack of willingness to search for a solution to this and the other problems which divide us from the communist world.

None of these problems is insoluble. Atomic energy need not destroy us; it can open for us a great age of human progress. Nor is there anything insuperable in the questions which have arisen about the future of Germany and Japan. Between the communist and non-communist worlds some modus vivendi, some agreement to live and let live, can be worked out. But this can never happen except through a process of genuine and mutual compromise and accommodation. If there remains any doubt about the desire of the western powers to find a basis for such compromise and accommodation then of course we must try to sweep away that doubt. This may require a great new effort on everybody's part-possibly some new high level meeting, possibly a full dress conference of the powers principally concerned, the fifteen, sixteen or seventeen powers if you Ike, on all forms of disarmament, including atomic disarmament; or it may require something else. It might suggest a meeting of the United Nations assembly in Moscow, an invitation to which may not be too easy to obtain. If, for example, direct negotiations amongst the great powers would initiate a process of settlement, no one should object to them on the grounds of procedure or prejudice. In this respect, I agree with the secretary general of the United Nations, who not long ago said that he was in favour of great power negotiations, and I quote from his statement:

. . . all the time, and on all levels . . . inside the United Nations and outside the United Nations.

Certainly, we must not become fixed in any rut, atomic or otherwise, or assume that any scheme we put forward is necessarily final or perfect.

The World Council of Churches, meeting recently at Geneva, made a moving plea for such negotiation in the following terms:

Governments of nations have an inescapable responsibility at this hour. The world is divided into hostile camps through suspicion and distrust and through failure of nations to bring their mutual relations within an agreed system of justice and order. As representatives of Christian churches we appeal for a gigantic new effort for peace. We know how strenuously governments have discussed peace in the past. But sharp political conflicts continue, and atomic danger develops uncontrolled. We urge governments to enter into negotiations at once again and to do everything in their power to bring the present tragic deadlock to an end.

We must all agree, of course, with that. It is essential however that any new move designed to insure peace by removing international differences must be taken only after the most careful preparation. At the same time the free peoples must make it equally

clear, as they can do, that they are not for a moment prepared, because of anguish over the *present situation, or fear or insecurity, to make any unrequited sacrifice, through which they would weaken their position in return for nothing. There is no use in giving way to unreasoning panic. We are stronger now then we were. But however strong we might become, it would be folly to base one's policy on strength alone. As has been said, the first obligation of diplomacy is to avoid a situation where power alone talks. We can and should, therefore, reaffirm our desire to seek again, through negotiation, a settlement of the divisions which now beset the world.

Even in the best circumstances, however, a settlement of the problems which divide the communist world from the free world will not be easily reached. Some new interventions, such as those suggested by the member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), in his interesting analysis of the present crisis, might be a useful beginning for such a process. Certainly this government would give every support to any new beginning which gave any promise of success. Let us not forget, however, in our determination or desire, our anguish to do something, that the road ahead will in any case be long and difficult. We shall have to walk it with patience and with caution, with persistence and with realism. If a new approach, for instance, did not get us anywhere-there is always that possibility -we must not even then give way to the inevitable reaction of despair which would follow.

This point is well put in a leading article of the February 18 issue of the Economist, which no doubt some hon. members have read. One paragraph of that article reads as follows:

Behind the hopes of a quick agreement with Russia lies more than a trace of the belief that peace can really be had quite cheaply, by a single bargain, and not, as is the grim truth, by an intelligent, costly and sustained political effort lasting over a generation. Repeated talk of settlements and agreements and pacts can divert the attention of both statesmen and peoples from the fact that the only possible diplomacy for the western world- that of agreement through strength-is about the most difficult diplomacy that democratic nations can be asked to sustain. It means that for years to come a measure of military preparedness and a high degree of economic stability will have to be maintained throughout the non-communist world.

I suggest we will also need a high degree of democratic unity to face the communist policy of aggression, directed from one, and only one, centre, and without the limitation of scruples or sincerity or morality. We must, I know, pay the price for freedom, national and individual, by differing and disputing among ourselves on occasions. So we have congress versus parliament; dollar versus

sterling; commonwealth associations versus European federation; security by military strategy versus security through social and political strength; international obligations versus domestic responsibilities. Every democratic state has these conflicts within its borders, and every group of states has them between its members. We should be careful, however, to see that they are not permitted to weaken us unduly as we face the dangers ahead.

At some point in the encircling barrier of unsolved problems which hems us in at the moment, there may be some new opening upon which we could begin to work. With patience and with diligence we must search for this opening, and, when we find it, set about expanding it with every tool of diplomacy and negotiation that we have available. We shall not, I suggest, facilitate this search by permitting our hunger for peace to lead us into unrealistic and specious courses. On the other hand we shall only hinder it by bellicose declarations that all is perfect on our side, and anyway we can lick Joe Stalin!

I should like, Mr. Chairman, in the very few minutes that remain, to turn to what the Soviet union is doing or is not doing in the particular field of atomic energy control.

During the past three or four months, while the United States has been going through the throes of its most difficult and fateful decision as to whether or not to push ahead with the development of the hydrogen bomb, because of the absence of agreement on the international control of atomic energy, the Russians have quietly and energetically been cultivating the impression, with some success, that they had already made new proposals for such agreement which we had turned down. Inferences are drawn from vague and speculative press reports that have passed the Moscow censors, as well as from some of Mr. Vishinsky's remarks on atomic energy in the last United Nations assembly, hinting that they have offered concessions which we are ignoring. Nothing could be more misleading or further from the truth. Nothing could be more dangerous than that this impression should spread.

Until last September our public were not particularly well informed as to what the Soviet position on atomic control actually was. Last autumn, therefore, when Mr. Vishinsky offered the assembly, as if it were something new, what he called strict inspection and effective control as an integral part of an atomic energy agreement, many people naturally thought that concessions were being made, and that at last the deadlock was being broken. Perhaps Mr. Vishinsky's intention was to concede and not to confuse, but some of his statements at that time

Supply-External Affairs seemed more like double talk, and in some cases were even mutually contradictory. In the course of the recent debate at Lake Success, he said everything about everything. If one makes a close and careful analysis of his statements, as I have, it reveals nothing that could not be interpreted as being wholly consistent with the Soviet proposals of June, 1947, which did not provide anything approaching adequate international inspection and control.

If Mr. Vishinsky meant us to read something new and different into his words, I hope he will make that clear to us at the first opportunity. It is of the greatest importance that we should know. At the moment we certainly cannot find out at Lake Success. Hon. members will recall that the assembly last autumn directed the six permanent members of the atomic energy commission, among other things, to discover what the new-if they were new-Soviet proposals on atomic energy control meant. But the Soviet representative walked out of the meeting without clarifying his own position in any respect. When these talks are resumed, as I hope they will be, maybe we shall be able to get that clarification, which must be insisted on because it is vital to the whole question.

To be specific and definite on this point, sir, I should like to draw the attention of the house to a comparison of what Mr. Vishinsky said in his main speech on this subject to the general assembly last November and what was proposed by the Soviet representative at the twelfth meeting of the atomic energy commission on June 11, 1947.

In summing up Soviet views on inspection -and this is the crux of the problem-Mr. Vishinsky made six points last November, which were simply a condensed rewording of the original Soviet proposals. On the heart of the matter, Mr. Vishinsky said that there should be-and I am quoting from his statement-"periodic and special investigation of the activities of enterprises extracting atomic raw materials"; that is, periodic and special investigation by some international atomic authority. That sounded fine. The Soviet proposals a couple of years previously said, and I quote from them:

The international control commission shall periodically carry out inspection of facilities for the mining of atomic raw materials and for the production of atomic materials and atomic energy . . . and carry out special investigations in cases where suspicion of violations . . . arises.

All that Mr. Vishinsky added to that statement was that he wished-

-to make it quite clear that periodic inspection means inspection at intervals, but intervals as determined by necessity and by decision of the

Supply-External Affairs

international control commission whenever that commission deems it fitting that such inspections should take place.

That is all very well as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough to give us that security under international control which is essential if we are to sign any international agreement. For instance, it does not allow for international inspectors to be on the job all the time, which we think is essential; nor does it explain how the international control commission could determine whether any country had declared all of its production facilities.

The Soviet union has added nothing to the most inadequate section of its proposals; for Mr. Vishinsky did not explain how "special investigation" could work in a country which would not allow inspectors to go anywhere except to the atomic establishments which it chose to declare. There is still nothing in the Soviet proposals to prevent a country hiding away, in a remote corner of its territories, a whole series of atomic installations which it would not necessarily declare, and which the inspectors would therefore never know anything about, because they could go only where they were shown, and then only at intervals.

We must be careful when we examine proposals of the kind which I have indicated; and we must be especially careful to see that the interpretation given to those proposals in our own country is not false and misleading, if we can prevent it. I am not, however, so much concerned at the moment with trying to indicate where the blame for failure lies as in finding a possible way out of the deadlock.

I therefore repeat that in this search, which is literally one for survival, we must keep open every road, every by-path and every trail which may lead us to the objective we all so ardently desire to reach. But we must, at the same time, take every necessary measure, moral, economic and military, to defend ourselves collectively against aggression from those reactionary subversive forces which have hitherto blocked the road to peace.

Mr. Graydon:

There is a general feeling abroad, Mr. Chairman, in this house as well as outside of it, that members of parliament generally should not seek to find differences with the government on major issues of foreign affairs but rather should try to find common ground so that the nation will be able to speak, so far as it is humanly possible, with a common or a united voice in the councils of the world.

It should be pointed out at this time, however, that those of us who are in opposition cannot be expected slavishly to follow the government on every point where they have

made a decision on external matters. In no other single department of government are the dice, so to speak, so loaded against the opposition and so loaded in favour of the government as in the Department of External Affairs when a discussion of foreign affairs arises. There is no general inter-party clearing of information of a confidential sort or otherwise in Canada today. The fullest information, secret, confidential and otherwise, is in the hands of the minister of external affairs (Mr. Pearson) and his experts as he presents his case for or against a certain position which the federal government has taken or is about to take. Even the standing committee on external affairs gets little information other than that which it has already obtained or will obtain from the newspapers.

The background of current foreign affairs ought to be made available more fully to members of parliament generally; for, after all, they are the representatives of the people; and whether it is a matter of domestic or foreign affairs, the people ought to know the facts upon which the government bases its decisions. I am sorry to say this, but I think I must do so. The rivers of international information available to those outside the strict confines of the cabinet itself have pretty well dried up in this country. I urge that the government, within the limits of security and ordinary diplomatic usage, should start these streams running again. It is highly improper and completely unfair to suggest in one breath that we have a single voice in the councils of the world and at the same time to withhold information which would enable .a clearer and more effective discussion of world events. I believe that the blinds ought to be rolled up in the east block so that from the centre block of parliament we can see at least something of what is going on.

It is my hope that when the standing committee on external affairs deals with the estimates which will be referred to them by the Commons shortly, an opportunity will be given to members of that committee which was denied by the committee itself last year, of hearing firsthand reports from those who have been on the ground in the countries in which the most acute crises have arisen. It is all very well to hear the various departmental officials here in Ottawa tell what somebody else has told them, and then we tell our constituents; but who is more entitled to get the firsthand information than the members of this House of Commons sitting in committee, or in the Commons itself? That should not be denied to them on this occasion. We are entitled to more than hearsay evidence.

Many arguments were advanced in the committee last year as to why we should not

near Ambassador Davis, who had been on the ground in China for many months prior to that time. We were denied that after a vote in the committee, and after, I may say, the government had indicated their desire that the ambassador be not called. That should not be repeated. We ought to be able to get the full light on external affairs if the public of Canada expect us in parliament to debate and make a decision intelligently on this very important level of our work.

It is little wonder that the minister of external affairs, in reporting to the house on the Far East, struck a somewhat pessimistic note. His message could be summed up in the words: "Anything can happen

there". When one realizes what a head start soviet imperialism has in the Far East, and realizes further the immensity of the problem of extinguishing the communist conflagration as it moves through the inflammable forests of misery in that poverty-stricken area, it should be sufficient to shake every supporter of democracy from the last vestige of complacency. When is added to that the record of events during the last five years, no one can look at this sector of the world front without grave concern for the future. Five years ago one out of every twelve of the world's people had a communist ruler. Today one out of every three is under communist domination. Without a single shot being fired or a bomb dropped, Russian imperialism has achieved the greatest single peacetime victory in the shortest length of time of any comparable movement in the world's long history. That is something that no Canadian can afford to ignore; it is something that no democrat anywhere in the world can afford to ignore, because it shows that the Russian campaign for world domination is on the move.

The house listened with intense interest to the Secretary of State for External Affairs expounding, not at great length but expounding nevertheless, his ideas with respect to the situation in Japan. His point of view, which seems to favour a quick and early peace treaty with the Japanese, does not carry universal support, if one reads the press and other news articles from time to time. There may be, however, a background of information available to him which is denied this parliament and many of those who take a contrary view, and anything I say will, of necessity, be tempered with this consideration.

Japan could be a valuable bastion for the democratic nations in the Far East and is in the best position of all of the nations there to stop Russian aggression in its tracks. It could also be an easy prey to the same aggression, and herein lies the importance of strategic Japan today.

Supply-External Affairs

The Japanese government alone, of all the oriental countries, took steps of an effective character many decades ago to westernize her economic, social and political ways of life. True, it ended up on the reefs of military dictatorship with consequent disaster; but it has within itself the elements necessary to establish a powerful democratic state, if it chooses to follow that course. If Japan is prepared to become a convert to our way of life, and a sincere convert, it can be an essential link in a world chain of democratic states.

Japan is occupied by a nation that has been her avowed enemy for years. It is only natural that there may be elements now within Japan which are not vocal, which are opposed to a continuance of the American yoke at this time. But until the western powers are satisfied that Japan is prepared to be that link in the world's democratic chain, the danger of lifting the occupation at this stage would seem to be a rather hazardous gamble at best. If Russia and her international communist propaganda were to overflow into the new state that is set up before its democratic government gets on its feet, we might readily find that the MacArthur occupation should not have been lifted so soon.

Some day the occupation has to be lifted, but a new tree in the strong wind that is blowing at the present time from the Chinese and Russian shores would be much more easily bent to communistic purposes than a sturdy oak with its roots firmly set in the ground.

To bear that out, one of the experienced staff members of the New York Times, who has been resident in Japan since the surrender, has this to say:

The possibility that Japan itself might be taken over by the communists must be considered. While the occupation continues, there is little likelihood of this happening, but what can be said about the future-if American troops are withdrawn? It must be remembered that if, after rehabilitating Japan, we allow the country to slip into communist hands, we have handed them on a silver platter precisely what Russia has been seeking and failing to obtain since the Russo-Japanese war more than forty years ago-an industrial plant in the Far East.

So far as Japan is concerned, it is my opinion that before the western nations adopt precipitately the policy of having Japan "go it alone" they must be certain beyond any shadow of doubt that by doing so they are not playing into the hands of a giant Russian plan to conquer the whole of the Far East. That is all I ask of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at this moment.

I shall leave other aspects of the Far East in the capable hands of my leader. He may have something to say with respect to them as the debate proceeds; but in turning to another aspect of our foreign affairs, which

Supply*-External Affairs was touched on by the minister during his address this afternoon, I do want to say that in my opinion the most vital job at the hand of every responsible nation of the world today is somehow to find the way to stop the present aimless international drifting, which is causing no end of alarm to the ordinary citizens of the world, because they have a revolting fear that a continuation of this squaring off of one group of nations towards another may end in another armed holocaust.

I suppose there is no single thing that is engaging the attention and absorbing the mind and thought of the average citizen in this country today more than the statement that I have just made with respect to the possibilities in the future.

Right now may be the critical turning point and this nation must bend her last sinew of energy, capacity and initiative towards resolving the present international impasse, which holds terrible implications while it remains unresolved. It is only natural, perhaps, to draw attention to this fact. The globe is so shrunken by means of modern transportation and communication that everybody today is everybody else's neighbour all over the world. Time and distance have been reduced to mere symbols of what they were, while into this shrunken ball of a world have been thrown two of the most destructive weapons of which our imagination could conceive. Moreover, the end of destructive enterprise and ingenuity may have only begun. From armament race to atomic race, to hydrogen race, the world races on with startling concern to all its citizens. It may well be that the choice before the world now is not just a choice between peace and war, but the choice between peace and the mass obliteration of mankind.

Whatever may be the ills of the world, they have shrunk into infinitesimal proportions when contrasted with the dangers which science is racing to make available for infliction upon our people. This makes the resolution of the main prospective causes of war an immediate must for us all.

At one time sitting on a keg of dynamite was about the most dangerous pastime of all; but sitting on a keg of dynamite today would, to the ordinary person, be a position of relative safety compared with what could happen were modern weapons ever to be used. Before it is too late, an end must be put to the atomic-hydrogen race, because history has too many instances to show that preparations like this sometimes lead to the use of the preparations which are made.

Before this world is shaken further with atomic paralysis, the peace-loving peoples of the globe must make a last, determined stand to chain the dogs of war.

It has been my fear, and I have expressed it more than once in the House of Commons, that the great United Nations Organization, which has numberless successes to its credit in the field of international peace, despite its failure to make one world out of two, has had one hand tied behind its back in its efforts to deal with world problems, because of the fact that the heads, particularly of the great powers, have seen fit to remain away from the sessions of the security council and the general assembly. This has tended to reduce the United Nations Organization, not merely in fact but in the eyes of the general public, to the position of a giant debating society, where nothing much is expected to be accomplished, and where only international hot air is released.

It may have been that those of us who attended at the birth of the United Nations in San Francisco, almost five years ago now, had ideas which were not shared by those who held other ideas concerning the United Nations Organization in general. However, my thought certainly was that when the United Nations was set up it would not simply be a second-rate meeting of people in other brackets of the public service, who would represent the nations of the world, but would be a meeting together regularly of the heads of nations to clear the decks for action, so far as world peace is concerned. Apparently that was not to be-but it certainly was one of the things for which I had hoped, and which I thought would flow from that great organization.

The United Nations has to be restored to public confidence once more, and it can be restored to public confidence in the final analysis only by the heads of the greater and smaller powers recognizing that this is the organization through which the nations of the world have chosen to work; and having so chosen, the heads of the nations should not any longer high-hat this their own close relation.

I have been amazed to find that this appears to be the state of mind of the chiefs of powers both great and small-and in this I do not include the government of Canada, because from time to time our Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) has attended. I must say about many other countries that in my view it is about time those countries came to their senses and realized that after all the United Nations cannot be allowed to

remain the plaything of ordinary representatives of nations, and that they cannot continue to boycott both the assembly and the security council, so far as the attendance of the chief figures in those countries is concerned.

I have doubts in my own mind as to whether any of the recent suggestions emanating from some of the senior world statesmen quite fill the present international bill. Some have called for a Big Three conference again, outside the United Nations, for the purpose of bringing the world's hopes for peace closer to realization. The end is laudable but in my opinion the means leaves something to be desired.

My proposal today is that the United Nations should not be by-passed, but that a special meeting of the security council and the general assembly should be called forthwith, and that Canada should take a leading part in initiating this movement. I suggest that, wherever this international meeting is held, the head of every state of the United Nations should be there, in person, to make one final and determined effort to clear the decks for peace in the days that lie ahead. When a few moments ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested that that special meeting might be held in Moscow, I think perhaps he was carrying things a little too far, and I believe in his speech yesterday President Truman indicated that he held that view. Because, afjer all, we do want to have a special meeting of the United Nations and we would like to have it at a place which would be convenient generally; but I do not think this country or, indeed, any other democratic country, wants to get down on its knees to any other competing nation. What we want to do is to meet them on fair, reasonable, equitable and decent grounds, wherever it may be.

These suggestions would meet the ends suggested by Mr. Churchill and others who have made similar proposals; and at the same time it would meet the objections of those who believe that the international organization, as at present constituted, should be the avenue through which this new peace move would be made. [DOT]

Without any reflection upon the high calibre and the splendid service given by men and women in lower governmental levels, who have done their utmost to promote the cause of peace in the United Nations Organization, I submit that too much of the actual peacemaking of the world has been left to those who hold inferior positions in the nations they so conscientiously try to represent. Acute and serious issues, like the atomic and hydrogen bombs, cannot be solved by

Supply-External Affairs people who only take orders from other governmental chieftains at home. What the world needs is that the chieftains shall put their feet under a common table at a United Nations meeting and make an honest attempt to give the people of the world the one thing they long and pray for, a just and lasting peace.

With threatening war clouds casting their shadows over every element of the world community today, no time must be lost in implementing some such proposal. As Prime Minister Nehru said only the other day:

If you think the world is a pretty had show, let the hydrogen bomh put an end to it. If you want to carry on the world with any decency, then you had better put an end to the hydrogen bomb. There is no choice for you. *

It would be folly to suggest that the vexed problem of outlawing the atom and hydrogen bombs is a simple one. The minister's speech this afternoon went far enough to indicate some of the major and serious difficulties which confront the nations. Ever since the days of Hiroshima, the three great powers have been making proposals and counterproposals with a view to banning the use of such weapons as machines of war. But actually the discussions have never reached the point where the deadlock looked likely to be broken. In simple terms, the deadlock comes from the fact that the western democracies have proposed that the mining, manufacture and use of atomic energy for war should be under international control and with it full international inspection. The soviets have accepted the proposals, except with respect to international inspections, as the minister pointed out a few moments ago. This they refuse to do except to a limited inspection and the limitations they place on inspection actually mean that a nation at its will can still mine, manufacture and prepare for war the use of atom or hydrogen bombs. In effect the Russian counter-proposal is no guarantee at all as to the outlawing of these destructive works of science.

One disturbing feature, of course, of even the western democracies' proposals for all-out banning and full international inspection is that while this would be a guarantee before war came, while peace still reigned, it is evident on careful examination that it would be no guarantee once war broke out, because then international control might well be impossible of implementation. In any protracted hostilities the nerve-shaking possibili- , ties of atomic energy being put to wartime use and inflicted upon humanity's masses of civilians would be ever present.

Nevertheless, the world should make another try at banning the bomb and at the same time making a determined effort to

436 HOUSE OF

Supply-External Affairs make nations mind their own business and to outlaw national policies directed at world revolution, which means the sticking of long foreign fingers into the domestic affairs of other states who have different systems of government. We need an international policy of "hands off" the other fellow's affairs.

These two issues, more than all others, are dividing the world into two today and before the western democracies are forced to conclude that Russia is definitely out to conquer the world and to impose her communistic system on all of us, the world meeting, which I have proposed before, should be held. It may well be the world's last chance, but at least the western democracies will know and their peoples will understand that every last thing has been done to preserve peace and to give the world's peoples a chance to live in the sunshine of international confidence rather than in the clouds and fog of fear, uncertainty and concern.

This is a severe testing time for democratic countries, for the maintenance of a high level of prosperity and employment is just as essential in the battle we are waging to preserve our way of life as the military preparedness which we have under way. We must find the way to master that problem as one of the major features of a successful fight against the inroads of godless communism.

As the minister did a few moments ago,

I crave the indulgence of the house to say a few words about another matter which is closely integrated with the whole issue of peace and war. We hear once in a while of General Worthington's visits to various sections of Canada. We hear of certain co-ordinating movements with respect to our fire departments, for instance. But with the intensity with which destructive processes have been developed, all of the gadgets and services of yesterday will not do for a war the day after tomorrow. If another war comes, and God forbid that we shall ever see it, our civilians in this country and in others might, without adequate preparations, present a state of helplessness the like of which the world has never seen in previous combat. The house must be told fully and frankly what provision is being made for the safety, hospitalization and security of our people in case of trouble.

' There need be no question of security reasons blurring the explanation of what Canada is doing for her own people to protect them from these perils. We read in the newspaper last week that Dr. Paul Larsen, now head of the United States office of civilian defence, has indicated that he will present

a program soon for the defence of Washington from atomic attack. Larsen said to the newspapers:

Our first job will be the relocation and redesign of the present government office set-up in the capital. Dispersion out of the Washington area and underground instalments, either in or out of the capital, will be our general means of defence. We may utilize underground shelters within thirty or forty miles of Washington.

What this nation wants to know is, "What are we doing to protect our people at home?" We do not want to hear about it nine months after we should have heard, like the combines commissioner's report or the screening of the employees of the national film board. With these rather sad experiences so fresh in parliamentary minds we have a right to ask and demand that our civilian defence preparations be made public. Actually, the defence committee which the opposition has asked for should see to it that General Worthington and his staff are called as witnesses, so that full disclosure of our home civilian defence position may be made known.

Naked diplomacy without bread and butter sometimes proves to be a cold and ineffective thing. The fact that the minister spent as much time as he did this afternoon on the economic end of external affairs would bear out the statement I have just made. An erstwhile European leader once said, "If trade does not cross international borders, armies will." Without subscribing fully to such a doctrine it may, nevertheless, be said that diplomatic relations are bound up-yes, and peace itself-in the opportunity which men and women have throughout the world to make a decent living. Of recent times our primary producers in Canada have been losing one by one their markets in the United Kingdom. There is a need to revitalize our trade position with members of the commonwealth and empire. As the minister of external affairs said a few minutes ago, there is a need, not only for prosperity in agriculture but for the prosperity of Canada generally. It is a great truth that if you have not a prosperous agriculture in Canada you can never say that you have a prosperous Canada.

At the risk of repeating what has been said already in the house this week, but which in my opinion cannot be said too often, there is much that can be gained by Canada taking the initiative in calling a full-fledged commonwealth trade conference. I must confess that when the minister made his report a week or two ago in connection with the Colombo conference-it may have been that his explanation was not understandable to me-it seemed to me that the commonwealth consultative committee upon which he laid some stress was a pretty weak and feeble

excuse for a full-fledged commonwealth conference for the settlement of commonwealth trade today. I do not know what other hon. members may think with regard to that statement concerning the commonwealth consultative committee, but it seemed to me that it fell far short of what Canadians, particularly those in primary industry, would expect.

' The United Kingdom has been our traditional market in the past for agricultural products and perhaps offers greater stability than any other. It should- not be a conference designed to increase tariff or other barriers or restrictions against other nations; rather it should be a gathering whereby commonwealth countries could once again find a formula for successful and prosperous trading one with the other. We must leave no stone unturned to find markets and good prices for our agricultural production. It must be made part and parcel of an effective over-all policy to maintain prosperity in the interests of the preservation of democracy on the world front.

Speaking further with respect to trade within the commonwealth, reports from the Colombo conference have been couched in considerable vagueness, and included such words as:

There exists a continuing and substantial degree of community outlook in the approach of the commonwealth countries to current problems of foreign affairs.

If there ever was a prostitution of the English language to a position where it means nothing I submit it is to be found in that kind of statement. So much was this so that one newspaperman of prominence in this country said that the announcement was like a medical bulletin about a very distinguished patient confined to hospital. The bulletin was, "the patient's condition remains good."

It is to be presumed from reports from Colombo that the new Asiatic members of the commonwealth prefer to throw in their weight with the democratic countries against the influence and spread of communism. The conference indicated that there was envisaged some program of mutual self-help and economic development which would be aided by grants of credit and technical help from commonwealth countries of more mature development.

The Washington tripartite talks last September recognized the problem of opening former trade channels for more of these Asiatic countries, and it was agreed that Canada would stockpile rubber and tin purchased from these nations for three purposes; first as a defence measure, second as an aid to Great Britain's depleted dollar reserves,

Supply-External Affairs and third as an aid to those Asiatic countries which have lost markets. That was six months ago, and still in the press of February 18 last there was a statement, originating from government sources in Ottawa, that talks are now going ahead between the government and Canadian industry for the stockpiling of natural rubber and tin in Canada.

I am told that our stocks of natural rubber have decreased each month since last September and that our consumption is increasing, for reasons that I need not go into now. Here was one place where Canada could have acted promptly and eased greatly in a practical way some of the problems which were recognized as among the most urgent ones at the Colombo conference last month. Something could have been done about some of tire problems which were covered up in that underbrush of words I quoted a few moments ago. May I point out to the house and to the government that after all there has been a lot of talk emanating from these international conferences, but it is deeds and not words by which Canada must make its contribution to stabilized trade in the Far East. If this example is to be taken as a general sample of the speed with which Canada is tackling the problems of the Far East, I suggest that there ought to be a change of policy or a change of gait in that regard.

This nation and others learned their lesson on preparedness during the early days of the last great war. Our people are not in the mood at this time to put their heads in the sand and let the world go by. Today some nations understand only the language of force and power. We have to master that language also, for while preparedness might look like war, when dealing with some realistic peoples it may well mean the guarantee against it. This nation must not be caught napping, and our external policy must be backed up by such might as will give its implementation both power and strength.

Nevertheless in our long-range plans for preserving democracy and our free way of life as against communism and its shackled way of life, we must not forget that the smashing of Russia and her satellite powers by any conceivable combination of military strength would not necessarily destroy communism. To some communism is an idea, to some it is a religion, to some it is a crusade; but who is there who believes that we can put an idea in jail, that we can blast a religion, or bomb a crusade successfully? Communism as an idea, as a religion or as a crusade does not march on battlegrounds, does not sail the seas, does not fly in the air, but marches in men's minds. It marches most successfully in the minds of

Supply-External Affairs men who have suffered economic and social injustice, and who are experiencing poverty, suffering privation and distress.

Collateral, therefore, to our plans for preparedness and national security we have to meet the challenge of communism on the battleground in men's minds. That means we have to show the hundreds of millions of people who are going somewhere towards a better life and independence, and who are still making up their minds in which direction they will go, that a system of freedom rather than regimentation and totalitarianism can give to the underprivileged masses of humanity a more abundant life than any other. We believe it can. We must demonstrate that it can or we fight with lessening chances of success.

The trump card of Prime Minister Nehru of India in his fight to keep India from communism does not seem to lie entirely in mass force but rather in the direction of seeing to it that India has a government which will achieve through free means a better life for all. That defence seems to be increasingly powerful in the lukewarm war between communism and freedom. Therefore let us remind ourselves that one of the powerful arms of our attack upon godless communism is bound up in the rapid and effective removal of the evils upon which that wretched doctrine feeds, and the maintenance of prosperity and good standards of living for our people. We must display to the world's masses that justice for all and humanity towards all, both big and small, is the hallmark of democracy at its best and the most effective guarantee of permanent peace. In our advance to that laudable goal, as democratic peoples we would do well to remember the immortal words of Tennyson:

Ring out false pride in place and blood,

The civic slander and the spite;

Ring in the love of truth and right,

Ring in the common love of good.

Ring out old shapes of foul disease;

Ring out the narrowing lust of gold;

Ring out the thousand wars of old,

Ring in the thousand years of peace.

Mr. Maclnnis:

Mr. Chairman, for two reasons my remarks at this time will be very brief. The first is that two members of the C.C.F. party have already spoken on external affairs in the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and others may have something to say this afternoon. The other reasons why I will not take the time of the committee to any extent is that by and large I am in agreement with much, if not all, of what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

The only doubt or obstacle that would be in my mind to full acceptance of it would be

the assurance, and probably that assurance was implicit in the speech itself, that he was setting forth the policy of the government, and not merely his own point of view. We must all admit that, today, international affairs is a difficult matter with which to deal. It is a difficult matter to deal with because we have a division of the nations of the world different from anything we ever had before. There are two general ideas, and there seems to be no point of contact between those two ideas.

In common with many members of this house, I had the opportunity of attending a session of the United Nations. It was quite clear to me that the Soviet union had one policy, and only one policy. It was to find out what the other nations proposed to do, and then say "no." I believe that is true, not only in the meetings of the assembly, but in nearly all the meetings of the organizations and committees of the United Nations. While conditions remain on that footing, there can be scarcely any degree of co-operation in world affairs. I must admit at once that I have not the solution. I am not as confident as the member for Peel is. I assume he did feel confident that some good would come from the proposal he made, that a conference should be called at which the heads of all the nations in the United Nations would be present. To me it has always seemed unrealistic to suppose that if Churchill or Attlee, for instance, President Truman and Stalin met, their approach to international affairs would be different from that of Molotov or Vishinsky. Surely, that idea arises from a failure to understand the fundamental principles of international affairs. When Vishinsky goes to the United Nations, he is expressing Stalin's point of view. If he is not expressing Stalin's point of view, then the Soviet union is not a country with that tight control we have been told it is. Do not suppose that any representative from the Soviet union goes to the United Nations, or any other conference, with a policy different from Stalin's.

I believe the first approach to an understanding of the present difficulties in world affairs is to get rid of that idea. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs refer to the economic situation. To my mind, there is one danger in our military preparedness, and that is that we may put so much into military preparedness that we cannot raise our standard of living. If that time comes, we are going to get a diminishing return from our military preparedness. I quite agree with the member for Peel that you cannot stop communism by military might. We will, of course, have to prepare to defend ourselves. Ultimately, the only policy for the destruction of communism will be tc

raise the standard of living of our people to show that all the people, from the least to the greatest, are of importance. Let us not forget that communism itself grew out of the despotism of the czarist government. May I say that the most tragic event in world history is the position the Russian revolution has reached today. So far as I have been able to read history, there was no event that had greater acclaim among the people of the nations of the world than the Russian revolution of 1917. It embodied a hope for millions of downtrodden and depressed people. Yet, it has come to the point where, in freeing the Russian people from the oppression of the czar, it has imposed a greater oppression than the czar.

A great many people still do not understand that. In common with the people who are hoping that if only Stalin can get around a conference table with someone everything is going to be all right, these people hope that, if the suspicions that the Soviet union has of the western world could be eliminated, everything would be all right. I am convinced it is not a question of suspicion at all. It is a question of a well worked out policy for world communism. The point I wish to stress particularly is the danger of putting too much emphasis on military pre-' paredness. I wish also to point out that any economic assistance we can give to the nations of western Europe may prove to be of greater value than if we had put that amount of our resources into military supplies. Let us remember that communist aggression is not only external; it is also internal. At any moment all that has been gained in France and Italy might disappear, if economic conditions in those countries deteriorated beyond a certain point. I believe that, above all else, the western world must remember that the standard of living of the masses of the people must be raised. The people must be given the feeling that democracy means something more than the right to vote at an election. It must mean the right to live decently, the right to bring up their families and educate their children. It must mean all those things, as well as the right to take part in electing a government. If we keep these things in mind I think we shall be able not only to supply the arms we need for defence but to increase our production so that the arms may never need to be used.

Mr. Low:

At this time, Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to speak at any great length on the resolution that is before us, but I thought it

would be important for the Social Credit group to put its views before the committee at this stage inasmuch as this whole matter of

Supply-External Affairs external relations has come to be perhaps the most important problem that Canadians face. I say that because the term "external relations" includes, among other important things, the whole matter of our trading relationships with other nations.

At the outset I wish to say that my sympathies are certainly with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I recognize all too well the fact that he finds himself surrounded by a set of circumstances the like of which few, if any, ministers of external affairs, foreign ministers or secretaries of state for foreign affairs ever faced in times before these. Because of the fact that our world relationships have fallen into such confusion, I believe that it is not the wisest thing to become carping critics. I think that the government must realize how tremendously important it is for them to take the wisest steps that men can take in full faith, and to feel that they have the backing of all the people. In his speech this afternoon the minister indicated a desire, I thought, to keep the people informed, and to have the people feel that they know what is going on. We realize that the minister cannot tell us many things that we may want to know. I can quite understand the difficulty of giving the people a running account-I think that was the term used by the minister this afternoon

of negotiations between the Canadian government and the governments of other nations of the world, or even a running account of some of the things that are taking place in the United Nations. But I believe that there are a good many things yet that could be done to keep the Canadian people more fully informed.

I cannot at this moment make specific suggestions as to what more could be done except to say that the minister and other members of the government should more frequently make before the house statements similar to the ones we have heard from the Secretary of State for External Affairs during the past ten days. The minister this afternoon mentioned the fact that he still has faith in the United Nations as our best hope for world peace. I suppose it is his business to have that faith; but I would suggest that it is the triumph of hope over experience; it must be. As the minister contemplates what has gone on and the position that the United Nations occupies today, with a split world, it must be an expression of hope that transcends the experiences of the past.

I suppose there is a good deal to be said for an international sounding board. The United Nations has often been called that. My experience there in 1947 impressed on me

Supply-External Affairs the thought that such a function might be a useful one. As the minister has said on one or two occasions, I believe-at least, if he did not say it here, he said it to me; and I am sure he would not mind my repeating it

they are not likely to be shooting while they are talking. I of course agree with that. But I believe that a danger arises out of that attitude. I am afraid that we might become so enamoured of the sound of our own voices in the United Nations assembly, security council and so on, that we are not aware of what is happening while we talk. It is perfectly apparent that while the nations have blustered, have talked, and have beaten the propaganda drum at the United Nations, communism has overrun and occupied country after country; and the United Nations has shown itself powerless to deal with this situation in any effective way. I know that there is no real use in standing up anywhere and uttering bellicose declarations-such as those I believe the minister had in mind this afternoon-against Joe Stalin, communism, Russia or anybody else. But I believe that we should be aware of the shortcomings of the organization we have set up. Not to be aware of those shortcomings, it seems to me, would be a great error of omission.

Let us look at the situation for just a moment and see how effective the United Nations has been with respect to one small matter; and at the time it looked as if it was a small matter. I refer to the problem of Israel. The United Nations decided upon a certain division of territory in the country in and around what is now Israel; and the various nations of the world agreed to that division. If anyone takes the trouble to look at the map today he will find that the territory occupied by Israel is far different from what was allocated to it by the United Nations assembly. Why is that? Well, there has been, by even small countries or small groups of people, toward any decisions of the United Nations, a defiant attitude which evidently that organization has been powerless to resist. Let us just look for a moment at the latest, namely, the effort on the part of the United Nations to set up in Jerusalem some form of administration for the protection of the holy places. I just call attention to Israel's defiant attitude toward that decision, and suggest that we have to be aware of the fact that even the smallest groups of people, the smallest countries, have been able successfully to defy that world organization, and make it tremendously difficult, if not impossible, to achieve the first step toward world peace.

Like the minister, I am full of hope that some way can be found of uniting the nations

that have gone to the United Nations assemblies and meetings so that peace can be made effective; but I must say that-my attitude has not changed in that regard since 1945, when on the floor of this house I pointed out the weaknesses of the whole United Nations charter and its set-up, which weaknesses, Mr. Chairman, have not as yet been altered or strengthened. I hope that some way will be found of strengthening them. In the meantime let us also look at another feature of this whole United Nations question.

When I was in New York in 1947 with the Canadian delegation I got the feeling that most of the nations of the world were using the assembly as a propaganda body-almost wholly as a propaganda body. I listened to speaker after speaker, not excluding our good Prime Minister, who at that time occupied the position of Secretary of State for External Affairs. I should like to say here that I did not hear him propagandize. I am proud of the fact that he stood up on the rostrum of the United Nations assembly, not long after it had opened in 1947, and gave a forthright statement of the Canadian position, which was not propaganda. I will say, and I think the Prime Minister will agree, that following that for weeks practically all we heard was propaganda.

Here was something also I noticed. I noticed that when Vishinsky spoke, or any one of the ' leaders of the communist satellite countries spoke, the United States press gave them great headlines, oftentimes the biggest they could get, and in red. I recall one day after Vishinsky had spoken we had a reception. In talking to some of the Russian delegates-if they were not delegates they were employees of the Russian delegation-they told me that Mr. Vishinsky had received as many as 30,000 telegrams from United States people congratulating him on standing up in the assembly and calling Dulles, and perhaps others, war-mongers. This occurred to me then. They chose New York as the site of United Nations headquarters, in supposedly the freest country in the world, with a free press. Russia and her satellites come over, and do they make the wisest possible use of those facilities! There was no attempt at evaluating news; no attempt at placing the proper perspective on what these men were saying. In the light of these things, what would happen if we had the headquarters of the United Nations in Moscow? I have wondered too, Mr. Chairman, whether the Canadian delegation has raised the question of holding an early meeting of the United Nations assembly in Moscow. Well, Senator McMahon,

I believe it was, in the United States just the other day made the suggestion. I am not sure that he did not have something. It seems to me it might be a very useful idea for the

nations to invite themselves to go to Moscow.

I am not so foolish as to say that Moscow would invite them or even let them go, but I will say this: If the nations of the world publicized an offer to have an early meeting of the United Nations in Moscow it might perhaps influence the thinking of a great many people behind the iron curtain. Surely there are ways of getting that information to them.

In this assembly I hear talk of an arm of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation which broadcasts from our shores to foreign countries. Surely we can use those powerful radio beams to let the people of Russia know what we are suggesting, to let them know that our intentions are peaceful and all we want to do is to come to their country and let them see what it means to have a United Nations meeting in their country. I do not know what success we would have but it seems to me that it might be very useful. I know we would not get the press in Moscow. That is all too obvious. But there are other ways than getting the press. When I saw all of these delegations and employees running around New York- I suppose literally thousands of them-I thought that they themselves were a good propaganda body, and if they were in Moscow I can well envision the sort of information that would be spread around among the Moscovites. I think it would be all to the good. However, that is a thing which we cannot decide. At any rate I should like to see the Canadian delegation make the suggestion. I am sure they would find a good deal of support among the delegations from the other countries that are members of the United Nations.

If we cannot place too much faith in the United Nations at the moment what is our hope for peace in the world? I do not think that we can put too much faith in conferences. I do not mind having conferences, sitting down in a frank way and discussing the affairs of the world, the affairs of trade and those other things that are bothering human beings. Perhaps some good will come from them. But at the present time I do not believe that conferences-with the world divided into two camps and an almost irreconcilable philosophy separating the two camps-will bring us any nearer to an understanding with Russia and her satellites if Russia and her satellites do not want to make an effort to try to reconcile our difficulties. I cannot see very much use of that.

I was attracted, Mr. Chairman, by something that was said by a speaker just the other day and reported in The Ensign, to which I subscribe. I do so because I like to keep in touch with what the various elements of Canadian life are thinking. I think The Ensign pretty well reflects what the Catholic

Supply-External Affairs people as a body in this country are thinking and feeling. Maybe there is something in this -I believe there is. This is the way the article reads:

Communist Russia's most powerful enemy was not the military or political strength opposing it, but the spiritual fervour of the Christian world.

This was uttered by Robert W. Keyserlingk, publisher of The Ensign, in New York. He reviewed the political events of the last twenty years, and said:

The battle of the century appeared to be over political methods, but was in reality between two fundamental concepts of man. These are the totalitarian concept of man as a functional unit designed to serve the state, and the Christian concept of man as created by God to achieve, with freedom and liberty, his eternal salvation.

I think various members of this group, notably the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell), the very last time we took part in this debate on external affairs, drew to the attention of the house the fact that the conflict today must be looked upon as a conflict between the forces of righteousness on the one hand and the forces of unrighteousness on the other.

It must be emphasized, too, that those forces of unrighteousness are represented by the totalitarian nations whose concept is that man must be a cog in the wheel, subservient to a supreme state, receiving direction in a regimented fashion from the supreme state. On the other hand one must look upon the forces of righteousness as representing those peoples who have declared themselves in favour of the Christian concept, which holds that man is an individual, in himself, with a spark of the divine within him, that he should be the focal point of all activity, and that he transcends all other things.

I believe that in our efforts to find some way to peace we must always be aware of what, the struggle epitomizes, and we must always be aware that in this great struggle we will have to take one side or the other. I feel sure the government and the minister will never desert the cause of the Christian concept, and that the government and minister will always range themselves on the side of righteousness.

In a world of violence, fear and poverty, the United States and Canada are an oasis of plenty, liberty and comparative security. That is why we in North America have a special duty in this struggle between truth on the one hand and godless error on the other. Those are the words of Mr. Keyserlingk, and I thoroughly agree with him.

We are facing fearsome things-fear of the hydrogen bomb, fear of chemical warfare, fear of germ warfare, fear of the continued spread of communism. But I think if we are to regenerate faith and if we are to find

Supply-External Affairs any hope for the future we will have to look entirely outside material things. We will have to look outside the puny powers of man himself

because we have got ourselves into such a muddle, into such a confused mess, that it is time we got down on our knees and sought humbly for the guidance of Almighty God to get us out of our difficulties.

I hold in my hand a statement-and I shall read it, because I could not phrase it in such fine words. I shall place it on record as the substance of my own faith and belief with respect to this seeking for world peace:

Dire perils threaten the world. In the final analysis it will not be through treaties, conferences of the United Nations or any purely human methods. These things are wise and necessary. But only the prayers and sacrifices of mankind can save us all from threatening disaster. The latest developments of science endanger the very existence of our world and threaten the lives of countless millions. The fearful devastation of the last war is as nothing compared to what will come should men engage in another struggle. A return to God, then, in the true sense of the word, is the price of our salvation. The issue is clearly put to us.

As a Christian nation, one that prides itself on having followed the Christian concept, I believe we can find some comfort in that. Personally, I have not very much fear of the hydrogen bomb, so long as a substantial portion of humankind will acknowledge their utter reliance upon divine guidance. When we do that the hydrogen bomb fear melts into insignificance. But we have got to make it a reality, and not mere words. We have got to put into our lives, and show the rest of the world that we believe in the Christian concept. In our approaches to our international relationships we must speak by deeds and not alone by words.

And that brings me to this division of what I wish to say, the problem of setting our own house in order so that we may speak with a united voice and so that we can show to the world by the sermon of our actions that we believe what we preach.

For a number of months I have been trying to think my way through this whole business of what we should do about communism. While I was giving thought to that question I ran across this editorial on the Finance-at-Large page of the Globe and Mail for February 22, 1950. It made me think, as I

believe it ought to make every Canadian think. This is what it says:

The Combines Investigation Act in Canada is directed against combines, monopolies and trusts among employers, but it says nothing, says the Unioneer (dominion labour unions, 73 Adelaide street West, Toronto) in a leaflet about "this new creeping paralysis known as the monopoly of human beings." It regards with great anxiety, for instance, the ability of one man in the coal-mining industry, "to stagnate an entire continent and create hardship and suffering for countless numbers of

[Mr. Low.l

innocent people." This gigantic labour monopoly is far beyond Canada's borders but has a great effect on the Canadian economy.

This "hidden hand" is safely domiciled beyond Canadian law, says the Unioneer, and tends to deprive industry and workers alike of the right to think. The author of the pamphlet is glad to see communism now condemned on all sides by labour on its own initiative but he does not like the fact that the law here "makes no provision for safeguarding the personal liberties of the individual worker." It actually compels him "to relinquish those rights for purposes of collective bargaining."

It is possible at any moment for a small group of men to shut down our basic steel mills, our coal mines, our railroads, our automobile plants and each and every one of them are vital to the wellbeing of our peoples. Such a combine should be brought within focus of the meaning of the law without favour or consideration.

I do not know whether all those statements are founded on fact, but what I have just put on the record points up the necessity of a good deal of soul-searching on the part of the Canadian people to see whether we have perpetuated in our own midst things which are just as communistic as the bolshevism of Russia. If we have, then surely it is our duty, if we want to fight communism successfully, to put our own house in order. Certain it is that a good many thousand people have become slaves to one or two or a small group of men under the labour laws as they now stand. Can it be avoided? I do not know.

What shall we do to fight communism? There is one thing I wish to suggest this afternoon. In addition to attempting to live according to what we believe, in addition to showing to the world in our lives as Canadian people that we believe the truth of the sermon on brotherly love, I think it is most necessary to launch an educational program based on reason.

One of the problems that we have faced in the past with respect to communism has been that all too often men and newspapers and periodicals have resorted to the use of fear and prejudice in an effort to arouse the people against this insidious thing. I do not believe that that does very much good. I do not think it helps to merely point out the horrors of communism and what it has been doing in countries like Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Russia or China. People soon become immune to talk of that kind. All too frequently they say, "You have overplayed the horror angle."

My view is that we ought to resort to a well devised program of education based on reason and not on prejudice and fear. It seems to me that if we would plan and execute a Canada-wide program that would make a restrained and wise comparison between the regimented economy, on the one hand, and the free economy, on the other; if we placed all the facts concerning standards of living in the various countries which

were represented in the effort to make the comparison before the people,* the Canadian people would react much more favourably than they would to a program of hate and prejudice and horror.

Such a program could certainly be put out by C.B.C. and give C.B.C. at least one good reason for justifying some of the things it is putting out. Along with that most assuredly we must do, as the minister has indicated we should do-we must set our economic house in order. However, declarations of that kind lose a great deal of their strength when ministers stand up on the floor of this house and say that we have to resort to scarcity methods, as did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) the other night. He said that if we are to help the people in the sterling areas with some of our surpluses we will have to cut down on our own internal consumption. In effect he was encouraging the restriction of production. That is the mentality of scarcity and it indicates a fear of abundance. It indicates a fear of attempting to organize within our country an economy of abundance.

I say that we have to change our mental outlook if we ever hope to organize Canada on a sound economic basis so that we can be of help in the world and be able to demonstrate that a free economy is better than communism, so that we can show to those people who have these little aberrations, sometimes called split minds-I mention Dr. Fuchs-that without doubt a private enterprise economy divested of the abuses that have crept in can create the best standards of living for the people of any type of organization known in the world. When we demonstrate those things and when by action we lift all of our people out of the realm of economic fear of the future, then we need not worry very much about the general masses of the Canadian people ever turning to communism.

I know that we are beset by difficulties in trade, I know that we are beset by great problems surrounding currencies and their convertibility and all that sort of thing, but the fact remains that we do have in this great country of Canada almost limitless resources, almost limitless supplies of power, almost limitless supplies of labour with which to produce a high standard of living for every Canadian. The possibilities are all there. Therefore, we should not allow ourselves to be restricted in any way in the production of abundance of goods and services. We should not allow ourselves to be restricted by any group of crackpots, such as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) spoke of,

Supply-External Affairs in the distribution of that abundance so that our Canadian people can have freedom from fear and freedom from want.

I think the Canadian people could gain real assurance if the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) would stand up in this assembly and say to them, "We will do our utmost to see to it that no financial restrictions stand between the Canadian people and the abundance of good things that this country can produce." Secondly, if he would stand up and say "We will organize affairs so that not one man who wants gainful employment will find himself out of gainful employment," I am satisfied it would set at rest the restlessness among Canadian people upon which communism feeds and breeds.

I want to feel that we can stand on common ground with the minister of external affairs in his approach to international relations. I close with this declaration. Social Crediters are seeking earnestly for a sound program on which we can co-operate with the government in power for the establishment of international good will and world peace. We are not going to criticize the minister when he is doing his best, but we will criticize him and the government if we think that he has not been doing his best. Furthermore, we will criticize if we feel that Canada is not taking every opportunity to act independently. I am satisfied in my own mind that Canada has not been able to act independently in a good many cases. Surely we do not want to provoke any nation, but there are times when subservience is a whole lot worse than provocation. I do not want to see this country in a position of servility to any country or group of men in the world. So long as the ministry keeps us on an independent footing and resists with all its might those forces that are determined to enslave the bodies and souls of men, then we will support it. But if we feel that they are not, then we reserve the right to criticize and tell the world where we think they are going astray.

I liked the forthright statement of the minister the other day. It did not contain very much meat, and I do not believe he expected it to. I liked his forthright statement today so far as it went. I should like to have more information. I do not know whether we can get that information in the future, but I am going into the external affairs committee, where these estimates are to be reviewed, with the idea of getting as much information as I possibly can that is founded on absolute fact so that we can discuss these things intelligently at another time when these estimates are brought back to the committee of supply.

444 HOUSE OF

Supply-External Affairs

Mr. Bradetie:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the honour that the house conferred on me a few years ago when I was appointed as the first chairman of the external affairs -committee. The same honour and the responsibility accompanying it were bestowed upon me again this morning as the chairman of the external affairs committee for the year 1950. Before proceeding further I want to pay special tribute to members of that committee in former years for the fine co-operation they have given on all occasions. A few days ago I asked the hon. member for Peel if he would again accept the appointment as vice-chairman of the committee, and I was most pleased when he said he would gladly do so. The fact that he is our vice-chairman means that, so far as the external affairs of our country are concerned, political aspects will not be involved in any way.

When the committee was first formed the former prime minister, Mr. William Lyon Mackenzie King, was secretary of state for external affairs. A few months later we found ourselves under the able guidance of the present Prime Minister. Now we are working under the enlightened and capable direction of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs left a secure and responsible position to enter the hurly-burly of public life he made a sacrifice, but in answering the call it was the appeal of duty that influenced him most strongly. It is most fortunate indeed, not only for parliament but also for the whole of Canada, that he found it possible to accept the heavy responsibility of his department. One cannot help but mention his humility. I have seen him in action in the general assembly of the United Nations. I have seen him in action at Lake Success and Flushing Meadow. I have seen him preside over committees charged with grave responsibilities. I have observed his fine reflective mind at work, a mind in which everything is registered that is said at meetings lasting for hours. I have noted the great respect in which he is held by every member of the United Nations Organization. Not only is it a credit to himself but it is a credit to every citizen of Canada.

I also want to felicitate him and his delegation on the fine work they accomplished at Colombo and in many sections of Asia. Again he has represented us with ability and as a true statesmen. I believe in all instances he has reflected the Canadian attitude clearly and distinctly, and that it has been based on logic and wide experience. During the present session of parliament the whole of Canada has been impressed with the fine demonstration of his qualities of observation,

his statesmanship and the heavy responsibility he has been carrying. His department probably involves the greatest responsibility of any department in the government today. Every word that he utters inside and outside the House of Commons must be based on logic, and must to some extent be circumspect. I repeat to the minister that he is doing a wonderful job and the Canadian people are proud of him.

I want to make a brief allusion to the statement of the hon. member for Peel about the information that hon. members should receive in the external affairs committee. The only instance that I remember where such a question arose was one that happened last year when some members of the committee requested that the ambassador to China should appear before it. Personally I was against it. Some members thought that we might have a sitting in camera, but I was against that. If there are questions in the minds of the Canadian people at the present time which require a sitting in camera, a meeting of a committee would not hold all those who would want to be there. In such a case the two houses of parliament should meet in camera but not the external affairs committee itself. I am expressing my personal opinion on the matter, and as chairman of the external affairs committee I would not take the responsibility under such conditions and circumstances.

At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.