March 7, 1950

LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

It is better to wait until I have finished before applauding. He makes fine speeches. He spoke the other day to the Dominion United Church men's association in the church hall, and referred to the Atlantic treaty and what it should mean to us. The Atlantic treaty was a good thing and, may I add, was sponsored by the Prime Minister 55946-35

External Affairs

(Mr. St. Laurent). As there was a failure in what happened at San Francisco, because of veto, and the required unanimity of the United Nations on important matters, it became necessary for those who believe alike to join together and to present a united front for the defence of democracy.

I understand it that way. As the leader of the opposition knows very well, it was the Prime Minister who made that move, which found a response in many countries of the world. Now we have the Atlantic treaty signed by many nations who seek peace.

The leader of the opposition referred to a Pacific pact. Would he sign such a pact if he were secretary of state for external affairs or prime minister of Canada? For instance, would he sign a pact with Japan at the present time? A couple of weeks ago some representatives from Japan came here. They belong to the liberal-minded people of Japan, were well received here, and I believe it was a good thing that they came.

Our minds turn to Australia, a country which is doing well at the present time. New Zealand is in a similar position. A short time ago Mr. Nehru, Prime Minister of India, addressed us in this chamber, and was received with all the honours due him. If there is no pact between Canada and those countries it does not mean that they are not friendly with us-far from it. In addition to India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand, there is China. I shall not remind the leader of the opposition of what I have said in the house on other occasions. Perhaps when he was not here he was engaged in other business and did not have time to read my speeches. However, some time before Madame Chiang Kai-shek came to Ottawa I mentioned in the house that all that had been done for China was completely useless because of the mandarins, the men who had exploited the Chinese people for so long.

The leader of the opposition knows that in China thousands if not millions of people die of hunger every year. Naturally those people who were suffering in China were not very enthusiastic when they saw our government and the governments of other countries supplying funds, arms and other materials to Chiang Kai-shek, because they knew that those around Chiang Kai-shek were enriching themselves with that which was to have been given to the poor people. That is a well-known fact. It is not necessary to read all the books that have been published about China. Everyone knows the facts-and those are the facts.

Therefore there was a feeling against the Chiang regime, and the Soongs and all the other exploiters of China. That was the

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

External Affairs beginning of the revolution. It is because Mao appealed to them and represented them that he overturned the regime. Now Chiang is in Formosa. The name "Formosa" means beautiful-and it is a beautiful island. Next to it is Hainan. But what are the populations of those two islands compared to the hundreds of millions of people who live in China?- nothing at all. In international law, just as in ordinary business, what counts is the accomplished fact. In this instance the accomplished fact is that Mao now is the acknowledged authority in China and he has signed a thirty-year pact with Russia. I hope that we shall come to real business in order that we may have peace in the world. What is the use of denouncing any country from one's seat in the House of Commons? What does it change? Where have we been since the end of hostilities? What is the news we read in the papers? It is always the same thing, with the same denunciations; and the more it changes, the more it is the same thing. Why is everybody a challenger instead of trying to come to some understanding with the other powers of the world? I do not think there are any communists here in the house. I will not say of any one of my colleagues that he is a communist. But if we are to have peace, should we work for war all the time? Should we challenge the other nations of the world, as was done the other day by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) and as some other members have done? If we do, we shall have here the same atmosphere that prevails among the diplomats at Lake Success, at Paris and other meetings, with the same result. I hope that, in the future, when diplomats and representatives of nations meet together, they will try to understand each other, and come to some agreement in order that war may be postponed as long as possible. Who can speak with authority about what happens behind the iron curtain? Who knows about it? If the minister knew, I am sure that he would tell us. He does not know any more about it than we do. It is a close secret. When someone asks the minister to tell him secrets of that kind, it is pure humbug; I regret to have to say that. The discussion of such important matters of life or death for millions of Canadians should be considered more seriously, and not in a dogmatic or academic manner. It is time to put politics aside when we discuss questions of life or death for the whole Canadian people. Are we to stand aside? What can we do if we stand aside? We have the United States, which is our ally. We have the United Kingdom, which we cannot trust more than necessary after what has happened in connection with Hong Kong. Everybody knows about it. I do not come with long quotations. I appeal to everyone, and I ask every member to recall what he has read in the press at one time and another. Everybody knows that if China has been recognized by England, it is precisely because England was afraid of losing Hong Kong. We know that. What happened during the last war? Not long ago we read in the press that Alger Hiss had been found guilty and sent to jail because he was considered to be a traitor. He was defended by Mr. Acheson. But nevertheless Alger Hiss was the adviser of Roosevelt at Yalta and it was because of the representations of Alger Hiss that Mr. Roosevelt made so many concessions to Russia. And why was the United States government wrongly informed about the strength of Japan during the last days of hostilities? Everybody knows that; it is no news. But one feels obliged to assume a solemn tone and to look dogmatic when we discuss that matter. Mr. Roosevelt unquestionably was a great man but he had some wrong advisers. He was like the leader of the opposition in that respect. I will make a special appeal to the leader of the opposition. I will ask him to put politics aside every time such momentous problems come before the house. He can do that, and do it well. I have had great respect for him since he said that Canada is a sovereign nation. He said that last year, and I congratulated him. It was a great change from the Tory policies of the past. I should like to mention one other thing, namely, what was said by Mr. Churchill about the representation of the United States and of Canada to France. At page 508 of Mr. Churchill's book on the second world war, entitled "Their Finest Hour" I read as follows: At the same time it was necessary to keep in touch not only with France, but even with Vichy. It is not a question of opinion; it is fact. I therefore always tried to make the best of them. I was very glad when at the end of the year the United States sent an ambassador to Vichy of so much influence and character as Admiral Leahy, who was himself so close to the president. I repeatedly encouraged Mr. Mackenzie King to keep his representative, the skilful and accomplished Mr. Dupuy, at Vichy. Here at least was a window upon a courtyard to which we had no other access. We had as representative at Vichy Mr. Dupuy who is now an ambassador of Canada somewhere else.


PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming:

To the Netherlands.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

Yes, to the Netherlands. He was doing the errands of Churchill at Vichy. Canada recognized Vichy, and Vichy was recognized by the United States; it was implicitly recognized by the United Kingdom

because Mr. Dupuy was representing the United Kingdom in an official capacity at Vichy. If you ask me why I say that, my answer is that I find that some erroneous statements and declarations have been made about Marshal Petain, the head of unoccupied France during the war. He was treated just the same as if he had not been recognized by the United States, by Canada and unofficially by the United Kingdom. As those facts must be true, and I use the evidence of Winston Churchill himself, I wonder why people do not admire the old man who has done his best to save the largest possible number of lives of his countrymen? Who could have done any better than he has done to save the lives of Frenchmen who were there? It was a sacrifice for him to accept that position at his age. Not only that, but my colleague the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Arsenault) the other day made a speech about de Bernonville. I do not know him. All I know about him is what has been said in the house by the hon. member for Bonaventure. Those who complain about him do not know any more than does the average citizen. It is easy to utter abominations against any man. Who are the Canadians who have died on account of de Bernonville? Why do we not have the names? Tell us who they are. It is said that Canadians have been killed on account of de Bernonville, but no name is given. What is most important, Mr. Speaker, is that he has been condemned in his absence by the court of Toulouse, and Toulouse is a city of France which is in complete control of the communists. Recently there was a seizure of arms there. We hear denunciations by the communists; and when a man is attacked by the communists, everybody is credulous enough and naive enough to say, "Let's get rid of him".

The behaviour of the former French ambassador to Canada on the question of de Bernonville was shameful. I do not know what was the matter with him but let us remember at the present time France can expect much more from Canada than Canada can expect from France.

In referring to the estimates a moment ago I thought of one thing. So far as external affairs are concerned it is not so much the Department of External Affairs which is the most important. It is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I congratulate the new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Harris). He must realize the importance of the tasks that have been assigned to him by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. St. Laurent). He must educate those who are not real Canadians, who may be good citizens but who have not in their hearts a real pride in their country, and

External Affairs

who do not yet consider Canada first when matters of importance have to be decided.

I noted what the leader of the C.C.F. group (Mr. Coldwell) said about the mentality of Anthony Eden. He said it in a discreet manner but I was in agreement with him. When I think of the progress that the Conservative party has made with regard to a Canadian spirit since the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Drew) has been at its head in the house I am surprised. I never expected that to happen, and I say that sincerely. For a time I thought the great division between the party would be on the one hand a Canadian party and on the other hand a party composed of imperialists, all those who have an inferiority complex, communists, everybody. Now I see there is progress, and I congratulate the leader of the opposition and the leader of the C.C.F. group. I see that there is some progress being made in the other corner also. Let us be Canadians; let us be proud of our race and of our great country and let us not be frightened by the false declarations that are made by some people who cannot support them.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

No progress on your side?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliol:

This is a good side; come over. As I said, this is a new era. It is a complete change, and hon. members know that very well. That is why I am prouder than ever of my party.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
SC

Charles Edward Johnston

Social Credit

Mr. Johnston:

You had better be careful or you will not stay there. You will be over here again.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliot:

No. I say there is progress, and no one is more blind than he who will not see.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
CCF

Stanley Howard Knowles (Whip of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation)

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Knowles:

The hon. member ought to know.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Jean-François Pouliot

Liberal

Mr. Pouliol:

The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Johnston) is too clever, too bright, and has too much experience in politics to deny it. He would not deny evidence. I will not insist on it. I am just about finished. I rely on the spirit of justice, patriotism, dignity and pride of the new incumbent of the office of Minister of Citizenship and Immigration not to do something that he would regret all his life. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the house for having been so kind to me once more.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Leonard T. Stick

Liberal

Mr. L. T. Stick (Trinity-Conception):

Mr. Speaker, it may be a task for a new member of the house to address this gathering on the question of external affairs. Much has been said about the eastern situation during this debate. The complaint has been made that we do not receive sufficient information on foreign affairs so that we may intelligently debate the issue. At first sight we may be in

External Affairs

agreement with that statement. I take the view that today foreign affairs are so important that we should consider having a united foreign policy supported by all members of the house so that there will be no contention among us as to what our policy should be either in the east or in the west in the interests of the maintenance of peace.

As a member of the committee on external affairs, I am in agreement with the chairman, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Bradette), when he intimated on Friday night that he could not be responsible for receiving confidential information from the department without proper safeguards having been made. As I understand it, one of my duties in the house is to safeguard the safety of the nation. Much as I might desire more information on external affairs, I agree with the statement of the hon. member for Cochrane, and I am not prepared to receive such information if by any chance it might get into enemy hands and thus endanger the state. In view of what has happened in the past in Canada so far as espionage is concerned, and in view of recent world events, I take the view that we cannot be too careful about what information is given in this respect. We have had the spectacle of the Alger Hiss trial in the United States. In recent weeks we have had the spectacle of Dr. Fuchs in London. Lo and behold, we now have a secretary for war in England who a few years ago had communist leanings. Where are we going? Whither are we tending?

The communist peril is a serious question for Canada and the whole world, and we will do no good unless we recognize it for what it is. I should like to quote an article from the New York Times of February 12, 1950, which may open the eyes of some members of the house as to where we stand on the question of eastern policy, and where the great nation to the south of us stands. It may open their eyes to the peril in which we both stand from communist activities in the world. The article is written by Arthur Krock, political correspondent of the New York Times in Washington, who is commonly known as the dean of the correspondents there and as the pundit. He writes as follows:

The president, and1 secretary of state Acheson, reviewing the bases of American foreign policy in the light of recent and dynamic events, said in substance this week: The United States cannot do

business with Soviet Russia (just as it could not do business with Hitler) except where a set of facts creates entrenched realities that force the Kremlin to adjust its aggressive policies downward. This happened and was proved in Berlin, Greece, Turkey and Iran; and all our efforts are to be directed toward increasing the number of such areas in the world.

To which important democrats as well as republicans in congress, some of whose demands for

[Mr. Stick.!

affirmative policy produced the executive statements, responded about as follows: You reject the concrete proposal by Senator Brien McMahon that a new approach be made to the problem, offering $50 billion in gifts and loans over ten years to nations everywhere, including Russia, in exchange for effective suppression of atomic weapons. You say experience has demonstrated the futility of attaining such an agreement with Russia, or of Russian adherence to any agreements that could be made.

By the same reasoning you reject the concrete proposal by Senator Millard E. Tyddngs that a general disarmament conference be attempted.

On the ground that the moral commitment of this government makes it dishonourable as well as self-defeating to diminish or abolish the sovereignty of the Chinese nationalist regime on Formosa, you decline at least one hopeful opportunity to confine the international communists to the territory which they have now acquired in Asia.

Now I should like to mention the situation in the state department in Washington, as it is set out in this same newspaper:

In other executive departments and at the capitol, however, nerves show signs of high tension. This correspondent does not attribute that to panic in any degree or to lack of any of the items in Mr. Acheson's formula. Many of the president's subexecutives are frankly worried over security, not only with respect to atomic secrets but with reference to general fifth-column activities in the government itself.

One such official told this correspondent he felt certain there was such a column at work in the department where his jurisdiction is just short of the top, but that he was still unable to bring persuasion for forceful purging. Another said he would be uneasy over the successful execution of any foreign policy, however sound and strong, until "five or six individuals" are removed from a very important government office indeed.

Then I should like to quote a dispatch from the New York Times correspondent in Paris:

The United States' attitude is that there is no use beginning once again an exchange of words when it is clear that the Soviet union has no intention of implementing them by actions. Premier Stalin himself once said:

"Institutions and systems are not changed by words-they are changed by natural causes."

The "natural causes" which appear to be predominant in the minds of the Soviet politburo belie the "words" of amity. The U.S.S.R. is pressing a cold war against the United States and its friends. Until such deliberate hostility ceases, mere "words" can be of no avail.

We have heard a great deal said in this chamber about peace, from a humanitarian standpoint; and we all agree with what has been said and the way it was said. We all desire peace; we desire it now more than ever. But we must be realistic about this peace, and I contend that Canada must speak with a united voice. If she speaks with a divided voice advantage will be taken of that fact. If we are not united, no matter what policy we adopt it will not contribute to the peace of the world.

Much has been said of an eastern policy for Canada. I served in the east for two

years, and I know what rioting there is like. I know what a wrong policy adopted by the western nations can mean to the east. The late President Wilson adopted a policy of self determination for all people. It was a high-sounding policy; and how was it received in the east? That news went through the bazaars like wildfire, and they interpreted it to mean that they could do as they liked, that they could disregard law and order. That was the way they acted, and troops had to be called in.

We do not understand the eastern mind. We in the west have developed the material or practical side of life, while the people of the east have developed the abstract or mystical side. If we think we can adopt a policy here, with our western ideas, without fully understanding the eastern mind, we shall fail and fail badly. Let me give just one simple illustration. A carpenter in Canada saws from the top down. A. carpenter in the east saws from the bottom up. In other words they view life from the opposite standpoint, and we must understand their point of view; we must understand their civilization, their religion, their social problems, if any policy we adopt is to be successful.

I was in India when the London Times came out with a policy to which, on the face of it, every man in the western world could subscribe; but if that policy had been adopted in India it would have led to untold trouble, and we who lived there knew it. I was through the riots in India. I was through Delhi, Amritsar and Lahore shortly after those riots took place, and I know how bad they were. I know how serious the eastern problem is, and I believe that any policy Canada adopts must be undertaken with a thorough knowledge of the eastern mind. One reason the Russian policy has been so successful in the east is that the Russians are half oriental themselves, and understand the eastern mind.

We have a situation in China which is not clear. We have a communist government, but we have the two islands of Hainan and Formosa held by the nationalist forces. The problem before us today is what to do about those islands. If we support the nationalist forces in China we will be accused of meddling in the internal affairs of that country, because Formosa was ceded to the Chinese republic after the war. If we decide to support the nationalist forces there it will mean that we will have to supply them with munitions and money to carry on the struggle. The best military advice in the world today is that Formosa cannot be held by the nationalists once the Chinese communists re-arm and reorganize their air force with Russian help.

External Affairs If that situation arises, Formosa cannot be held.

What do we do then? Do we send men and munitions to hold it? And if we decide on such a policy will the people of Canada and the United States back us up? If we do not support the nationalists and Formosa becomes communist territory, it will provide a springboard for communist propaganda and infiltration in the Philippines and the eastern islands. I do not know the answer, but there is the problem. I agree with the leader of the opposition when he asks for caution, and for time to be taken in order that consideration may be given all these matters.

We have more or less the same problem in Indo-China. We are fighting a guerrilla war against communism in the Federated Malay States. We have Siam not knowing which side of the fence to stay on. She has 30,000 communist troops within her borders, and she is afraid that if she disarms and interns them she will become unfriendly with the communist regime in China. Like so many of the weak states in the east, she is sitting on the fence waiting to see which way the wind will blow. We have chaos in Burma, and a situation in India which requires careful consideration.

How many men in this house know how India is composed? When we speak of Canada we think of it as one nation; but when we speak of India we must think of it as a conglomeration of peoples. In India and Pakistan over three hundred dialects are spoken. There is more difference between a Mahratta and a Sikh than between a Frenchman and a German. There is a greater difference between a Bengali, a Rajput, a Tamil and a Punjabi. How is Mr. Nehru going to bring all these people together?

He has our sympathy. He spoke here, and he, received a grand welcome. Mr. Nehru has a problem which is colossal in the extreme, and just as complex. The United Nations decided they would send a mission to settle the Kashmiri dispute. They are trying to settle it according to western ideas. They said, "We shall take a plebiscite, and let the people decide for themselves." This mission has been there for many months, but no plebiscite has taken place as yet. Kashmiri is a thorn in the flesh of India. If this question is not settled promptly, it may well lead to civil war between Pakistan and Hindustan. You have a situation there which is fraught with great peril. If we can help Mr. Nehru and the Indians to solve this problem, by all means let us do it.

India is the bastion of democracy, such as it is, against the communist influence filtering down from Afghanistan through the Khyber

External Affairs

pass. We must support Mr. Nehru in any move he makes to keep the communist influence out of that part of Asia, because if it gets down there it will spread further.

Much has been said here about peace in the world. I have dreams about the peace of the world. Last fall the Prime Minister made a statement that war was not imminent. His statement was received with a great deal of relief by all the members of this house. The Prime Minister cannot guarantee future peace, nor can anyone else. As the article in the New York Times states, that has been demonstrated time and time again. The holding of conference after conference and getting nowhere is not the way to peace. What are Russia's intentions in the world? Hitler wrote a book called "Mein Kampf", in which he set out the plans he intended to carry out. When people read that book, no one would believe he would be foolish enough to tell us what he was going to do, and then do it. But he tried to do it. Lenin has written that communism and the Christian ideology cannot exist side by side on this earth; one must go. We would do well to believe that, whatever policy Russia has, and however she may trim her sails to suit this mood and that mood, the basic principle of communism is that Christianity must be destroyed or communism will be destroyed. We have to face that fact. To sign pacts with people for whom the ten commandments and the sermon on the mount have no meaning is useless. They can but be binding on us, and they will not be binding on them.

If we call a conference now at the higher level, and trust them, we shall be sadly left. The only language they understand is the language of force. This nation, and all the other democratic nations, must be strong; strong to resist aggression and show these people in the Kremlin that if they do start a war they may destroy, but they will be destroyed. One of the reasons why gas warfare was not begun by the Germans during the last war was that they were afraid of the retaliation the allies would make. We have to get it into the minds of the people in the Kremlin that if they do start a war we shall retaliate; that is the only language they understand. If we cannot penetrate their minds, we must penetrate the minds of the Russian people, and of the people who are under communist domination. We must impress upon them that the policy they are adopting is a policy of destruction, and that, while they may destroy, they will be destroyed. Nobody wants to commit suicide. That is the language they understand, and that is the language which we must put across to them if peace is to be maintained in this world.

We in. Canada together with the other democratic nations of the world, must be strong or we shall have a war. That is the road we are travelling, so let us admit it, whether we like it or not. I do not want a war. I have seen enough of it. Any man who has seen anything such as I have seen does not want war. But I do not want my wife ravaged or my children taken to God knows where, if that is the price of communism. I want freedom in this world. I fought for it years ago, and 1 am prepared, old as I am, to fight for it now. I want peace in the world, but I also want freedom. If we think we can have peace without freedom, we are making a grave mistake. During the interval between sessions, I have travelled this country from the east coast to the west coast. I have met many Canadian people, and I have talked with many of them. I say to you that this is a grand land; it is a good land. I could describe it as a land of hope and glory; hope, because of the faith that the people of Canada have in the future of their country; glory, because of the achievements of the people in the past. Thank God, it is still a land of the free. Let us keep it that way.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
CCF

Clarence Gillis

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):

Mr. Speaker, there are a few remarks which I should like to make at this particular time. This foreign affairs debate is generally reserved for the experts. I have been in this house sufficiently long to come to the conclusion that there are no experts. It is mostly because of the experts that we get into difficulty. I rise at this time because of a speech which I read that was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) at Lake Couchiching. It was reported by The Canadian Unionist of September, 1949. This speech is a masterpiece, and I recommend that every member of this house secure a copy and read it, particularly the members opposite. In that discussion, and it was quite lengthy, the minister covered practically all the obligations of a free society. If, in the administration of his department, he follows the mechanics described in that talk, he will not go very far astray.

I accepted that speech as the embodiment of his opinion, so I was rather disappointed, when he opened this debate, to get the impression that he was not as free as I had seen in the house on former occasions, when he had returned from the field behind the scenes of external affairs. In this speech the minister seemed to be a bit shattered. I got the impression that, as a member of the cabinet, he was placed in the position of attempting to apologize for internal government policy by using external matters to cover up. I hope I was wrong. It seemed to

me he was doing a bit of clever footwork, and I was a bit disappointed. One of my reasons for rising at this time was to recall to the minister's mind that particular speech, and the mechanics outlined in it so that he could reset his sights.

As I said a moment ago, this business of external affairs should hold no mysteries for the members of this house. I am reasonably sure it does not for most of the citizens of Canada. Within the memory of most of us in this house, we have seen two wars-wars that have come to us from the outside. We have seen Canada's position in those wars, and we had a fairly good idea of the things for which we were fighting. I well remember the old league of nations. I was a member of the league of nations society. I decorated many platforms between the two wars in preaching the gospel of collective security. I thought we had everybody in the world convinced. I remember very well the leader of the opposition being in that organization before he became a politician. He too used to take a stand on matters of collective security. We remember these things, and there is nothing mysterious about it. We know how we get into depressions and what brings about wars. We have seen the machine of propaganda at work twice during our lifetime building a country up and then tearing it down. If you read the press today it is difficult to be sure where propaganda ends and facts begin.

I should like to go back over the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs a little bit. All through that speech-and I think correctly-the minister suggested that there were two extremes in the world; and the safe and sane and only course for this country to pursue was to provide a cushion between the extremes, so that there would not be any fear of a clash or a war during our lifetime. I agree with him on that. But I cannot see the government to which he belongs following that particular course at this time. I myself do not think that we are doing all we could. I do not think that we are living up tt) our obligations under the United Nations charter. I agree with the last speaker that psychoanalyzing the East, understanding them, solving their difficulties, and all that kind of thing, is a pretty tough proposition so far as we are concerned. But we have made certain commitments within the United Nations Organization that we as a country can live up to. I do not think we are living up to them. I want to qualify that by saying that I think the main requirement in the world today is to feed hungry people. With that in mind the United Nations have set up the food and agricultural organization. That body of experts from all over the world

External Affairs

decided on certain policies; they decided on certain things that should be done with regard to feeding hungry people. At some time in this debate I should like the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) to tell us whether we as a country are doing all we can to live up to the proposals made by that particular branch of the United Nations. I do not think we are, and that is something we can do.

Secondly, I do not think we are living up to our obligations under the United Nations charter in not accepting the report of a committee of experts on economic affairs, which was recently made. The main consideration of the committee in that particular report was to devise ways and means within each country to maintain full employment. Certain recommendations were made. They are rather lengthy. I imagine most hon. members have read them. I am not going to quote them tonight. Boiled down, the committee recommended that in each country, in so far as it was possible, full employment should be maintained. They recommended certain measures that should be adopted if employment was slipping. For example, they recommended a public investment program. They recommended some social security measures; they recommended keeping purchasing power as high as it possibly could be kept if the unemployment figure went above what they considered a normal level which was, I think, around 4 or 5 per cent of the working population. Our figure has gone beyond that. We have a large number of people unemployed in the country. I do not think that any of the main recommendations of the committee have been acted upon by this government. The fact of the matter is the reverse is true, because our representative in that particular field did not agree with them. I have a copy of his statement to the committee on the measures that they recommended for the purpose of maintaining full employment. He disagreed with them completely. He told them that as far as he was concerned they should lie in abeyance until such time as the government had an opportunity to study them, and so forth. He felt that the recommendations made by these experts from every country in the world in that particular field were impracticable and could not be applied in this country at this time. If they could not be applied in this country at this time, or back in September, 1949, then they could not be applied in any country in the world; because, in my opinion, this is the only country that has surplus resources on which people could be put to work. I think we are falling down in that respect. The least we can do is to do the things that are possible within our own country that come within the structure of the United Nations.

External Affairs

It is not hard to disillusion people and to make them sceptical and doubtful. We have heard a lot of high-sounding talk in the last ten years, and particularly in the last three or four years. I heard the leader of the opposition refer to the Atlantic charter. In his election campaign Churchill claimed great credit for the writing of the Atlantic charter. What did it mean? It did not mean anything. It was merely a propaganda statement, drafted for war purposes, on the eve of the invasion, to stimulate the troops in that invasion. It was only a formal document. It meant nothing legally and the people have come to that conclusion. They know that now because in effect Roosevelt said so himself. It was merely a propaganda document to stimulate people and to spur them on to a greater war effort. All of the language that was contained in the Atlantic charter about free access to raw materials of the world, and so forth, was just so much eyewash. It did not mean a thing. We have to start doing things if we are to come through this period right side up.

The discussion brought on by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at this time on the question of the recognition of China is an important one. It is one that should be thoroughly understood. I got the impression that in bringing it on at this time the minister is merely flying a kite for the purpose of getting all the information he can on the subject. I think he is testing public opinion and is looking at the editorials in the press. That is exactly what I would be doing if I were in his place, and had to deal with this particular subject at this time, because I know-and we might as well be quite frank in admitting this-that there is a lot of pressure being put on at this time by sectarian sources. So far as I am concerned I do not let these things influence me. There is a certain world condition, and if in the judgment of a majority of the members of this house and of the government a certain something should be done, then so far as the house is concerned that is what should be done, because in handling this particular situation we may be hitting the key to the future; and if we strike the wrong key and someone starts throwing atomic bombs around, they will not be either Catholic or Protestant; they will be straight atomic bombs without any discrimination, and we had better have a thorough understanding of it.

The leader of this group has already said that so far as he is concerned he thinks we should recognize China at this time. The leader of the opposition has taken an adamant stand to the effect that he does not think we should. He thinks it is the road

to appeasement. Well, no one should know the route to appeasement better than that party-and I am not saying that to cast any reflection upon the present leader of the opposition. But I do know they were behind appeasement as it developed before the last war, and leading into it. However, I shall not comment further upon that.

Then the government are doing exactly what I said they were doing. They are flying a kite-and I do not blame them because, in the final analysis, it is their responsibility. They are the ones who have to make the decision. I cannot see much similarity between the position developing now and the one which prevailed before the last war on the question of appeasement. I do not think we are appeasing anyone.

I am not concerned about the legal aspect of the matter. Someone said this afternoon that some professor had made a decision based upon international law to the effect that we have to recognize the fact that a certain government is there-and that that is international law. The question which arises in my mind is this: Who writes the international law? Certainly there is no international government, nor is there any statute as such. It is merely the opinion of someone who is a "supernatural" lawyer. He hands it on and some think it must be accepted as gospel. I am not concerned at all about that aspect of the matter.

I am concerned about the position of Canada, and her relations with China, and whether we are able to give the Canadian people an intelligent lead from the House of Commons. We have recognized many satellite countries, not because we liked them or because we liked their philosophies, but simply because they are there. We have established trade relations with them, and that is about all.

Our position with respect to China, as I see it, is this: In that country there are 450 million people who, because of mismanagement in the past, a lack of the means of life, and a high degree of manipulation, are prepared to accept anything in preference to what they had. That is the kind of government they have in China today.

There is much, talk about an iron curtain, lack of opportunity, and getting in to tell the people what we are trying to do. Well, instead of appeasement, as set out by the leader of the opposition, are we not in a position where we must ask ourselves whether we are willing to close the door on China, have another iron curtain, and cut them off completely from any relationship with the outside world, thus throwing them directly into the arms of Russia?

Is it not better for us at this time to recognize the fact that, so far as China is concerned, there is no complete control of that country today?-and I do not think anyone, at least during our lifetime, will have complete control of it. It is in a fluid state. The armies of a certain section representing communism are in there, but they have not much to work on. My recollection of the Chinese people is that they are most versatile, and it will not be easy to ignore them.

Is it not better for us now to recognize what Great Britain recognized? She recognized China because she was faced with an immediate war, with the possibility of being driven out of Hong Kong. Indeed, I do not believe she could have held on. So, was it not better for her to stay there and to hold that section of China so that she could open up trade relations and have people in that country working along with the Chinese people at this time, while the situation is still fluid within that country?

Would it not be better for us to do that now? Would we not be wise to establish trade relations because, whether we like it or not, we are part of the United Nations set-up? In my opinion the delegates from the present government of China will be recognized and within the near future will be seated within the United Nations. Where is there any appeasement in our wanting to take the only logical step we could take at this time, that of keeping in there and helping the Chinese straighten out the mess they have at the present time?

I come from a riding which is well informed on international affairs, and in which there is an old established union with a co-operative set-up. They have studied this question thoroughly. I was in touch with them on it while I was home, and I have no hesitation in making the statement here that they believe this is the responsibility of the government.

The minister has set out certain definite steps which must be taken before recognition is granted. When these steps are taken and when the government is assured that the government they are going to recognize and with which they are going to establish relations can live up to its international obligations, then I believe it would be proper for this government to take those steps and thus keep as close as possible to the Chinese people.

I have no hesitation in saying that, and I believe the great majority of people outside the house would support the government, if they understood the situation. However, most people are confused by the double talk they hear on this matter. So many people are afraid to take any stand until they see which way the straws are blowing, with the result

External Affairs

that people do not have leadership and do not understand. Then, they are confused by th'- editorials in the different newspapers, one pulling this way and the other that-not because they are particularly concerned with the government's responsibility but because they can make certain propaganda and capital out of the subject. The result is that people are confused. This question is so serious and can create so much confusion that I believe the minister and the government are entitled to the expression of definite opinions, without any double talk, as to where each member stands. In this way the people outside may be enlightened and have a clear lead from the House of Commons.

Ninety-five per cent of those who sent us here have not the time to read and understand the implications of all these matters. Members have that time, and should make a study of these subjects. It is my belief that members of the House of Commons are morally obligated to give the people some understanding of what should be done when a matter of this kind comes up-because this question may become the key to the future, so far as war is concerned.

I should like to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) take strong steps within his own party for full implementation of the recommendation of committees within the United Nations structure, because I do not think in the world today there is any country in a better position to carry out the recommendations with regard to full employment and the recommendations made by FAO. I believe if we can show our people, people outside and those within the structure of the United Nations, that Canada is accepting her commitments and living up to them, it will be the best way to influence the Czechs, the Yugoslavs and the Chinese, and all those who go with them.

I believe I have said in the house many times that I am not afraid of a shooting war. First, I do not think the United States will ever take aggressive action to start a war. Secondly, I do not think there is any country in the world more afraid of war than Russia. As I see Russia today, and as I have seen her for some time, she is in much the same position as Germany was in 1944. She has spread herself-and the farther she spreads the weaker she gets. Today I see her as the fly who captured the flypaper-he was there, and he was stuck with it. When a country has to police half of Europe, and then pitch in and help China, and has her forces scattered all over the world, she is not getting any stronger.

If someone wanted to shoot tomorrow, what do you think the Czechs would do, or the

5S4

External Affairs

Poles, or the Roumanians, or the Bulgarians? Do not make any mistake about it, nobody knows better than Joe Stalin what will happen. There will be a roorback. These people are not subjected. They are under the hand of the Soviet for the time being. I cannot see Uncle Joe wanting to start a shooting war and perhaps open up his own borders to counter-revolution. I do not think the United States of America will ever toss either an atomic bomb or a hydrogen bomb. I do not think they are built that way. I do not think they have any imperialistic, expansionist aims.

This cold war that Russia has been throwing at us is all part of the game. Anyone who has read the philosophy of the program of the communist party-and I think most hon. members here have-will know that the period they are in now is known as the period of national revolutions; that is, promote revolution within each country as you go along, and have your satellites take over. That is their program now. Their program is not to start shooting. But if they can create unemployment and bring about the inevitable break-down of capitalism, as they say-create confusion and chaos and soften the people up -that is good propaganda for Russia. It is good propaganda to build up their machine within this country.

Hitler did the same thing. It is not new. It is the totalitarian method of conquering a country. They are doing now exactly what Hitler did prior to the outbreak of war. The people in Europe were starving. Hitler was offering them bread. He asked them to give up their freedom. All we have ever said to them is, "Cling to your freedom"-freedom to go hungry when you have not any bread. We must offer them both freedom and something to eat. The game is the same today as it was prior to 1939. It is just being played by a bigger and a better card player; that is all. But I think we have learned something ourselves in the meantime. I trust that the minister will have good luck and good health in the administration of his department, and I hope that he will occasionally pick up this copy of The Canadian Unionist, have a look at it and read back his speech. In my opinion that speech is a masterpiece; it is worth reading. I advise every member of the House of Commons to read it. I hope that he will apply the philosophy contained in that speech at every step of the way as he goes along, both nationally and internationally.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
CCF

Alistair McLeod Stewart

Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (C.C.F.)

Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):

After listening to the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. Gillis), Mr. Speaker, I always find that he has expressed a certain amount of common elementary horse sense

which is most refreshing. Once again he has done so in this debate on international affairs. It was opened last Friday by the minister, and much of the discussion which has followed has centred around the recognition of China. It is not a matter about which I am greatly excited. Last November, during the course of the last debate, I said that the recognition of China had to be an ad hoc business, that we should recognize China before it was too late to get advantage of the recognition but not so early that we might give aid and comfort to a regime that we disliked. Obviously that last qualification has disappeared. I still repeat that the recognition of China is not a matter of ideology. It is a matter of assessing the facts of the situation and acting accordingly.

I was asked by a friend on Saturday afternoon what I thought of the minister's speech and about what he had to say in it. To some it may have appeared to be a rather prosaic statement of the facts of the situation, but I could only describe it by an analogy, by saying that he started off with a pack of hounds along a certain defined track, and on occasion one of the hounds would pull away from the pack and go into the brush; but before he got too far the minister had whistled him back to join the pack and at the end of the journey they were once again all together. I think it would have been much more interesting had the minister permitted some of these intellectual hounds to wander still further into the underbrush; but for his own good reasons he has refrained from doing so.

Following upon his statement there was a speech made by the leader of the Conservative party. On listening to it I came to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman was asking for a jehad, for a holy war against the infidel. When I read the speech, however, I was much less certain that I was right; and when I reread it, I must admit that I am still even more uncertain as to what he meant. I think that his whole statement might be boiled down to this sentence which I quote from page 466 of Hansard:

But the highest duty of every government today ... is to demand that there shall be common action, and that there shall be a clear and uniform pattern of strategy which will be known to the people of the free nations, and which will be known in the clearest detail to the nations which threaten our peace and security.

But what form of common action? Does he envisage common action under the United Nations or common action under the Pacific pact which he would like to see but which is, as yet, impossible. If not, under what aegis does he envisage this common action

and how would he like it to take form? It is hinted at again at page 462 of Hansard where he is reported as saying:

The territorial ambitions of the Soviet empire . . . are not limited except by recognition of the fact that there may be some point beyond which they dare not go.

But again he left questions in my mind. What is the point at which the Soviet union will stop? Does the leader of the opposition know that point; or does Mr. Stalin, for that matter, know it? I do not know, and I think the leader of the Conservative party ought to give his opinion as to where that point is. Is it in Viet Nam? Is it in Malaya? Is it in Thailand or is it even as far as India?

Then as reported at page 463 he talks again of firm action and he says:

When I say "firm action" I mean the kind of united action to preserve peace which the Russians will recognize today just as the Germans would have recognized It either in 1914 or in 1939.

But again he has left too many "i's" undotted and too many "t's" uncrossed. It seems to me as though he desires to impose his terms upon the Russians, and I do not think there is any nation in the world today which can impose terms of any kind on that country. As reported at page 465 of Hansard, for instance, he tells us this:

Appeasement is going to go no further: we have learned the lessons of the past and there will be no truck and trade with tyranny of this kind unless and until they are at least prepared to accept the ordinary standards of international conduct.

Again the hon. gentleman seems to wish to impose upon the Russians his desire and his conception of the ordinary standards of international conduct. I am afraid that his standards and mine differ, because only too frequently the standards of international conduct which we have seen in operation are the standards of the jungle. He asks for peace, yes. He tells us that his speech is geared to peace. But again I suggest that the peace which he envisages is peace on our terms; and the Russians I think have already made it amply clear that they are not prepared to accept those terms.

He stated that there should be no recognition of Mao until common action is decided upon. The view has already been expressed, I think, that common action now is impossible in view of the fact that certain members of the commonwealth and of the Pacific area have already recognized Mao while others, including the United States, have not. I suggest further that common action is impossible in a world of national sovereign states, where what will most appeal to a state is its national interests. The British have recognized Mao not because they like him but because they thought it was essential for trading relationships that they should do so. The Americans

55946-36 i

External Affairs

have not recognized him for their own good reasons, not the least of which is the matter of prestige.

How then can we reconcile these two national views? The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Drew) also asked members of the house to express their views on the matter of recognition. He stated that the Mao regime was imposed by force. I am not prepared to dispute that, but nevertheless it is very obvious that it was a force which was acceptable to the great mass of the Chinese people. It was a force which was acceptable to the peasants and the workers in the cities, and also to the intellectuals of China. Obviously the Kuomintang regime had little hold on the loyalty or affections of the Chinese people. One has only to consider the defections of the Chinese armies, and the constant surrender after surrender of Chinese cities to realize that Chiang had little hope of holding either these towns or the loyalty of the people. The reason he had little hope was that the communists offered the people of China food. A bowl of rice today in China is an infinitely greater argument than all of the ideologies which the wit of man has devised. We have to learn again the lesson that the strongest argument against communism in Asia today is food. And now we see Formosa groaning under the bureaucracy of nationalist refugees, and also under threat from the Peking government. I think there is little doubt but that island will eventually fall.

There are certain arguments for recognition. I have already advanced one of them, the national interests of our country. I am not prepared to say exactly when and at what time China should be recognized, but there is another aspect of the situation which must be considered and that is that the recognition of China undoubtedly is a weapon in the strategy of the cold war which is being waged all across the globe. Non-recognition by the western powers may mean a surrender by default to Moscow of leadership which we ought to be giving Asia. That is one of the dangers which we face.

We know that Mao signed an agreement with the authorities at the Kremlin. On the face of it, it appears to be not unfavourable to the Peking government. They are going to get the help of certain technicians from Russia. They are going to be given back certain cities in Manchuria, and we shall have to wait until 1952 to see if that promise materializes. They are getting a loan of some $300 million spread over five or six years which, so far as the rehabilitation of China is concerned, is nothing but a drop in the bucket. Nevertheless one can adduce that as evidence to show that there is close integration between

External Affairs

Peking and Moscow. I should like the house to remember that even although that agreement exists China is not necessarily lost. If Moscow is going to behave towards China as it has behaved towards other countries which communist parties have taken over; in other words, if Moscow is going to try to make China another satellite nation, then I am [DOT] certain that the Russian policy is doomed to failure.

On the other hand, I am equally certain that we cannot make an ally of China. Therefore our policy should be designed to try to ensure its neutrality, and anything which looks like hostility towards that country will have the effect merely of pushing it further into the arms of the Russians. Today in Asia communism is not the strongest force. Nationalism is the strongest, and after nationalism the desire for economic progress. We have to realize these things, and if we do then I think the west is capable of giving the lead which is so essential.

There was another part of the argument of the leader of the opposition which rather intrigued me. In part he objected to the recognition of China on legalistic grounds, but at the same time and in the same speech he welcomed the recognition which had been accorded Viet Nam. I do not know on what grounds he did so because there is infinitely less reason in law for recognizing Viet Nam than there is for recognizing China. On the other hand, it may be that his argument is the moral one that we detest and despise communism and therefore we should not give the accolade of recognition to any such regime. If we are going to argue on a moral basis then we must be consistent, and we must be prepared to withdraw recognition from those communist-dominated nations to whom we have already accorded it. I will go much further than that and say that communist-dominated nations are not the only ones whose customs I dislike intensely. I would think if we are going to be thoroughly logical in our moral condemnation we have to go the whole way, and if we do that we will have to cut down our diplomatic staff until it is perhaps the size of a corporal's guard.

I said that Viet Nam does not satisfy the legal conditions necessary for recognition. Again that is not a matter which worries me unduly because recognition of Viet Nam is not a legal matter. It is a diplomatic maneouvre and another step in the cold war.

I think we ought to give some consideration to what is happening in that country because of the consequences of the actions of the western powers and of Russia. There are two factions in Viet Nam. The first is headed

by Bao Dai. He is a French puppet who was educated in Europe. I am informed he is a bit of a playboy, but then he is youthful. He abdicated in 1946 and afterwards served under Ho. On the other hand there is Ho Chi Minh, his great rival. He is a communist agent, one who worked with Borodin in China, one who is playing a very skilful and cagey game today. He is the one of course who is recognized by Russia, and that is important because I do not think Russia would have recognized Ho unless the Kremlin had been reasonably certain that he was going to be successful in his struggle. The house will remember that Russia did not recognize the insurgents in Greece, but they have given recognition to Ho who may of course have received the kiss of death recently when he found that Tito had also accorded him diplomatic recognition.

There are certain arguments in favour of the recognition of Bao Dai. The first is that recognition by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France, as one would expect, has raised his prestige amongst the native population, an argument which is probably quite valid. Another is that he controls the large centres of population in Viet Nam. Nevertheless over the whole picture I doubt very much whether he controls the loyalty of 25 per cent of the people of that country, and certainly he does not control the majority of the land mass. It has been argued that he is the only alternative to Ho and that we could do nothing else. It is perhaps also true that we are endeavouring to support France, that the French wished to recognize Bao Dai to preserve to some extent the stability of the French government on this matter, and it was essential to go along with their desires. Perhaps the best argument of all is that the reality of the cold war demanded that recognition.

On the other hand-and I am presenting these alternatives to the house-there are arguments against it. In the first place Bao Dai is obviously a French puppet. He does not control the foreign affairs of his country and he does not control the armies of his country.

He does not control the finances of his country, nor does he control the judiciary. All these come under the control of France; and until the people of Viet Nam have more control and more to say in their own country I doubt very much whether it will be possible to persuade the nationalists to swing in behind Bao. What we in the western world seem to have done is try to bolster a colonial regime. We are faced with the fact that the Russians have recognized Ho; and having recognized him, they may feel it right and proper to support him. The western world has recognized

Bao, and having done that they have to support him or suffer another loss of prestige. Thus we who wish Bao well may find that whether we like it or not we have become mixed up in a civil war in this country in southeast Asia; and that is a great and grave responsibility for us to undertake. Once again we seem to have been manoeuvred into the support of a regime whose only merit is that it is anti-communist; and that is not a good enough way either to contain or defeat communism. This is a distinct testing ground if ever there was one; and if we wish to see Bao successful he will require something more than good wishes. The western world will have to realize that it has material obligations to him as well.

Perhaps if the minister is going to close this debate he will be able to enlighten us still further as to what happened at the Ceylon conference when the majority of the commonwealth members agreed to recognize Bao but Mr. Nehru held out against them on the ground, which I think was good and sufficient, that Bao's position is something more than precarious.

In his speech the minister dealt with another matter that is worthy of careful thought. He gave us a resume of Russian proposals for the control of the atomic bomb and pointed out that there has been no significant change in the Russian position over the last two or three years. Two things are obvious. In the first place the Baruch plan- I call it that though it has been amended-is not acceptable to Russia. In the second place they are not prepared to agree to full-time inspection. That is not a new position but one they have taken right from the beginning; and these are facts which must be considered. In his remarks the minister said Vishinsky's proposal does not give us that security under international control which is essential if we are to sign any international agreement. That is true; it does not give us very much security. But there is no security at all today; and perhaps even the most limited degree of security will offer a little more hope than the nothing we now possess. Since Russia obviously has the atomic bomb I suggest that there is less reason than ever for expecting her to accept the United States proposals which were put forward two or three years ago.

What then is going to be our answer to this Russian refusal? We must have some answer. Again the minister gave a glimmer of hope when he said we must keep open every road and every path in the search for survival. I think we may agree that today there is no complete defence against enemy attack; but unfortunately the only answer of the west is

External Affairs

to find greater means of destruction in the hope that we can make an enemy suffer more than we do. That is not the most constructive or most sensible approach to the problem. We in the west seem to be obsessed with the idea of increasing our military power under the illusion that it is going to make us safe. I maintain that it will do nothing of the sort; that if that is the extent of our answer to the Russian "no" there is no safety at all.

So we must have some sort of control, no matter how inadequate it may be. While I am not prepared to accept everything the Russians suggest, at the same time I do think we have to settle down a bit ourselves until we can find some common ground for discussion. We must find some sort of control not only over the atomic bomb but over the right to wage war. Even if Russia accepted the Baruch plan, can one say there is any fully proved method of achieving security under it? I doubt it, with a nation the size of Russia. So we have to start again.

There has been a change in tactics and also, in certain quarters, a change in outlook. I read an editorial in yesterday's Ottawa Journal commenting upon something which Mr. Lilienthal said in condemnation of certain scientists who feared that the advent of the hydrogen bomb might mean the end of the world. He called their statements intellectual nonsense. This editorial went further, and said that Hiroshima was a pin point in the world, and that even if the hydrogen bomb should be a hundred thousand times worse it could not be very much more devastating. Hiroshima was not a pin point, and here is surely an example of the moral stultification which many have reached. What happened at Hiroshima was that thousands of innocent people were murdered in the name of war. I do not attack the use of the bomb, nor do I defend it, but surely in heaven's name Hiroshima was something more than a pin point on this map. In the body physical a pin point may mean the beginning of a cancer which will cause death. In the body politic that sort of pin point may also lead ineluctably to the same sort of death. Hiroshima was not a mere pin point. Time after time in this same newspaper I have seen the editors invoking Christian beliefs; yet by their own moral paralysis they have shown that these beliefs have very little meaning to them, when they count the death of tens of thousands of innocent people as merely a pin point. That perhaps is an interpolation, yet I felt I had to say it.

I say there has to be a change in tactics. Containment in the negative sense obviously is not enough. Containment allied with a desire to improve the condition of peoples throughout the world might have worked, but I do not think we are doing quite enough to

External Affairs

help. Growing sums of money are being spent on weapons, but surely we should learn the lesson of history that when we spend more money on weapons our possible antagonists also are going to spend more. The eventual result must be growing fear, growing tension, and the distinct possibility of war.

Today almost everything is being placed second to the illusion of national security. In the North Atlantic pact we are trying to provide ourselves with security, but again we have not gone far enough. Here Canada has a grave responsibility, because the government, rightly and properly, insisted on the insertion of article 2 in that treaty. That is the article which deals with closer economic collaboration. Unless we can get rid of the economic rivalry and economic war which now exists, we are not going to find the security we want in military co-operation. We must have economic as well as military co-operation; then there may be for us an element of safety. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to press that view not only in private but also, if necessary, in public.

So far as I am concerned, I firmly believe that it is national sovereignty that is keeping the world in a turmoil. Until we get rid of national sovereignty, I see no hope of ultimate security. We have learned a lesson in surrendering some of our own individual rights in our communities. Each of us has been required to give up some part of his individual sovereignty to the community, so that it could maintain law and order. In that way, security and freedom have been maintained. We have not yet had the intelligence to project that lesson into the field of international affairs. Until we have seized

the initiative, and attempted to catch the imagination of the people of the world, we shall not succeed in containing communism. The suggestion I have to make may be greeted with a certain amount of derision in some quarters, but I do think we could seize the initiative by suggesting at the United Nations that an element of national sovereignty be surrendered to that collective body. This element of national sovereignty would, of course, deal with national defence.

I do not think for a moment that the offer would be accepted by the Russians or by their satellites, but at least we would have made the offer. If that does not work, then we have to try to achieve something within a narrower group. The only group I can see is that composed of our allies in the North Atlantic treaty. If we do that, if we collectively give up part of our sovereignty then I can see hope. I believe this government has to give leadership, not only to the people of Canada, but as we can and as we must do, to the people of the world.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
LIB

Elie Beauregard (Speaker of the Senate)

Liberal

Mr. Speaker:

Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink
SC

Ernest George Hansell

Social Credit

Mr. Hansell:

No, Mr. Speaker, I would beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   S46 HOUSE OF COMMONS
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

Alphonse Fournier (Minister of Public Works; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull) moved

the adjournment of the house.

He said: Tomorrow we shall resume the debate on the address.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.50 p.m.

Appendix

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

APPENDIX

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIERS OF SOME OF THE PROVINCES WITH RESPECT TO PROPOSED DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE


OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of British Columbia Victoria, February 10, 1950 Right Hon. Louis S. St. Laurent, Prime Minister of Canada, Parliament Buildings, Ottawa, Canada. My dear Mr. Prime Minister: I have for acknowledgment your letter of January 27, and may say that the government of the province of British Columbia will be pleased to participate in a conference to discuss questions of common concern to the provincial and federal governments at a time to be designated. I note your desire to have my views regarding matters to be discussed at the conference in the fall. I shall be pleased to forward you my comments regarding the agenda following the prorogation of the British Columbia legislature. With kindest personal regards, Yours faithfully, * Byron I. Johnson


March 7, 1950