Mr. Sevigny:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to take advantage of this debate to report to the house some of the observations which I made during my recent trip to South America.

It was my privilege to represent Canada as an observer at the special meeting of the inter-American economic and social council at ministerial level which opened at the resort of Punta del Este in the republic of Uruguay, on August 5.

This meeting grouped together delegates of the countries of South America, Central and North America and observers from almost all the nations of the world. This conference was probably the most important event of its kind which has taken place in the history of Latin America and what was decided there may well be the turning point in the sociological, political and economical life of all Latin American countries. At long last, the Latin American countries have realized that they must unite in spirit if they wish to be strong. They appreciate that they must direct their cultural tendencies in the proper channels if they wish to survive. They face the fact of the necessity of increasing their respective productive facilities and their trade relationships if they wish to prosper. The leaders of these countries are particularly aware of the fact that some countries are faced with the choice either of moving forward through the application of the proven methods of democracy which will mean a better way of life and a better standard of living for all citizens or yet face the inevitable upsurge of communism in their midst with all its dire circumstances.

We arrived at Punta del Este on the first day of the conference and we were surprised

Supply-External Affairs to find the considerable unrest which animated the 1,500 or so delegates who were crowding all available accommodation in this beautiful resort. We did not know, of course, and we learned much to our amazement, that many political, cultural and business leaders were worried by the influence exercised on the thinking of a great many people by the Cuban actions of the last year and by the Cuban propaganda. There are many who were truly worried that the arguments which were expected to be put forth by the leader of the Cuban delegation might promote certain tendencies which could be disastrous to the necessary unity which is sought by the sound thinking people in the southern hemisphere.

It is most difficult for us in Canada to appreciate that a small island like Cuba, populated by 4 million people, more or less could exercise such an influence on a continent populated by more than 150 million people. But it must be remembered, in order to appreciate the situation, that there are in Central and South America many small nations which have had to live for decades through a series of disastrous revolutions, people who know the horror of famine, of extreme poverty and of economic chaos and confusion.

The people who have nothing are ready as always to throw themselves at the mercy of the first person who offers what may look like benefits or an improved situation. Many have been impressed by the Castro propaganda which claims the success of the revolution and which bluntly declares in the most deceitful fashion that Castroism has brought the golden age to the Cuban island. There are some who feel that what supposedly can be accomplished in Cuba can also be accomplished elsewhere under the merits of the Castro regime. Since the Castro propaganda is based almost entirely on a violent anti-United States campaign, it is rather obvious that if such a doctrine became successful, it could, to a certain extent, isolate Latin America from the North America which we know. It was, therefore, with anticipation and a certain apprehension that the delegates greeted Mr. Clarence Dillon, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, when he rose to make his initial address in the early stages of the conference. It was with much joy and relief that all heard the most generous offer of aid which was made to Latin America by the United States statesman. Even the most optimistic governments were stunned by the magnitude of the aid offered and greatly pleased by the attention which the United States government is giving to the Latin American area.

Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?

Supply-External Affairs The Deputy Chairman: Before I leave the chair, may I remind members of the committee that we resume our sittings at 7.30 p.m. this evening and not 8 p.m.

At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Mr. Sevigny:

Mr. Chairman, at six o'clock I had just mentioned that the members, delegates and observers who were at the conference at Punta del Este were stunned by the magnitude of the aid which was offered to Latin America by the United States. I should like to place before the committee a list of the main points of this aid which has been offered. They are as follows:

(a) an undertaking to commit aid on a long term basis by which it is hoped $20 billion of outside capital, public and private, can be injected into Latin American economies over a ten-year period. The target is to achieve an increase in real income of 2.5 per cent per person per year. The United States delegation was effective in giving other representatives the impression that an all-out effort would be made.

(b) recognition that aid must be supplemented by practical measures to raise the export earnings of recipient countries, including a lowering of United States trade barriers to the products of Latin America and a sympathetic approach to commodity agreements and measures for stabilization of prices of basic commodities. In particular, the United States undertook to participate in a workable coffee agreement to be negotiated in September.

(c) offer of a crash program for emergency aid to make an immediate impact in the areas where the social and political situation is most dangerous. Claims on this program must be presented within 60 days and the funds to be allocated are estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $300 million. This is a reflection of the argument clearly brought out in the conference that revolutionary turmoil threatens chiefly the smaller Latin American nations. The objective is to maintain political stability in these areas while long term projects get under way.

(d) concrete demonstrations of the acceptance of planning, a concept to which the United States delegation at the San Diego ECLA conference had earlier given official blessing. This implies more or less an acceptance of the strong possibility that national and multinational economic planning in Latin

America often may not act to the advantage of existing United States commercial interests in this area.

The conference then endorsed the principle of co-ordination of national development plans and approved the appointment of a panel of planning experts to carry out this role and to assist in the formulation of national plans, in the acquisition of necessary financing from the inter-American development bank, the United States government and other sources. The planning group, although normally independent for administrative purposes is to come under the secretary general of the organization for American states. This arrangement seems likely to enhance the prestige and importance of the organization.

It was indeed fortunate that the United States could speak and make its offer of aid before the Cuban delegation could make its own declaration. As expected, the speech of the leader of the Cuban delegation, Mr. Ernesto Che Guevara, was a violent attack on the so-called American imperialism and almost an appeal to all Latin Americans to rebel against the power of their strong northern neighbour. Mr. Guevara cut quite a personable figure at the conference. He was dressed in the well-known Cuban battle-dress suit, had the familiar well trimmed beard, was surrounded by the most horrible looking and presumably armed bodyguards, and put on quite a well rehearsed theatrical performance.

Mr. Guevara is very young. He is only 31. He is quite obviously an intelligent man and has acquired most of his training by intuition. But he has a natural talent for the stage and a definite talent for eloquence. His performance would have been worthy of an Oscar if Oscars were given for such performances. It was dramatic and the audience of 1,000 clearly enjoyed the show that our friend Guevara put on. But the hollowness of his arguments and the obvious efforts which were made to break up the unity of the conference met with the indifference which that speech deserved. It became apparent that all delegates were strongly united behind the position adopted by Mr. Dillon and the United States delegation.

It seems that Mr. Guevara, after he had finished his speech, fully realized that he could not carry on with his initial stand and, as a result, the Cuban delegation became much more co-operative as the conference progressed. It advanced proposals and amendments which made sense and which, at one point, were in fact unanimously accepted. Many delegates, towards the end of the conference, even had the impression that Cuba was willing to conciliate and find a basis

for a better understanding with its neighbours. The conference was definitely a success.

What is most gratifying is that during our stay in Punta del Este, we met the representatives of most of the Latin American countries and I am pleased to report that Canada enjoys a position of great prestige in Latin America. There was no exception and the political and business leaders whom we met all expressed their admiration of our country and their wish to establish a closer cultural and economic relationship with our nation.

At a luncheon which was offered to the delegates of the various nations by President Haedo of the republic of Uruguay, Canada occupied the place of honour and it was indeed gratifying to realize that Canada and Canadians are held in such high esteem in South and Central America. It was remarked frequently by many Latin Americans that there is an affinity between Canada and their respective countries. The Argentinians in particular observed that although we are geographically located at opposite ends of the Americas we nevertheless resemble each other from the point of view of size, population, the quality of our industry, the nature of our agricultural products and many other features; and the wish was expressed everywhere for a closer relationship which should prove mutually profitable. This, of course, made us very proud to be Canadians and to realize that the love which we have for our country is shared by so many others in foreign lands.

The conference lasted for ten days and ended on a note of optimism and determination to improve the fate of one and all in Latin America. There is no doubt that the moves that were initiated should prove extremely beneficial to the general and better interests of all American countries. Immediate effects resulting from the crash aid program should be felt soon and if the resolutions adopted are followed to the letter, it is quite reasonable to state that the future looks bright for Latin America. At this point, it is important to emphasize the great differences that exist between the economic structures of North America and those of Central and South America. The methods which have permitted the United States and our own country to grow and prosper during the last twenty five years are almost unknown in many sectors of Latin America or are still in their incipient stages in most countries. For example, banking such as we know it, trading and business practices which are in current use in this country and which have been so successful are unknown or not utilized in many sectors of the southern hemisphere. The use of credit which is the basis of our economic strength is unknown in most of the 90205-6-510

Supply-External Affairs Latin American countries. Few people in Latin America can, as an indication, buy a home, an automobile or the other commodities of our every day life and be granted the privilege of paying over a short or a long term basis. Money can be borrowed only at the most fantastic rates and investments in many countries are considered insecure because of a raging inflation and of the ever present risk of political revolutions.

The degree of illiteracy is tremendous. It is estimated that in Brazil alone, a country of 70 million people, at least 50 per cent of the population or 35 million people are completely without education of any kind. The degree of poverty as a net result in some areas is almost beyond description and I can say without exaggeration that in order to improve the standard of living of these enormous masses, almost all remains to be done. Latin America needs enormous sums of money; and although the sum of $20 billion offered by United States as aid during the next ten years may appear fantastic at the outset, it is still relatively insufficient to meet the needs of Latin America during the next decade. But what Latin America needs far more than money is the technological methods and the scientific training which have been applied with such success in our northern hemisphere. Latin America does not need money as much as the knowledge of what to do with the money that it will receive. In the name of sovereignty or autonomy, some countries may be reluctant to accept the advice of foreigners or of those North Americans who will try to teach them the proper use of the financial means which will be offered. This could very well be disastrous since this money, if not properly utilized, could well be spent in futile ventures or even fall into the hands of a very few who, as it has too often been the custom, will invest it in foreign lands where the risk of a revolution is small and where the rate on investments can be more secure. Those interested in the future of Latin America should immediately use every effort to convince all Latin American countries of the need to accept the help of those who wish to train Latin Americans in the ways of modern technology and industrial and business practices which have proven so successful. An endeavour in this direction is essential if immediate and long term success is desired. A failure in this attempt will almost inevitably result in the rebellion of the people against the hopelessness of their fate and destiny and the advent of communism. What threatens Latin America is the worst form of communism, the revolution of the people who have not against the people who have; the destruction of all that is good; the rebellion of the poor

Supply-External Affairs who blindly will destroy all that stands in their way; the chaos, confusion and bloodshed which accompany revolutions and for us the danger of having next to our shores the presence of millions of people who will distrust and hate. All this has been realized by the delegates and observers who were present at the Punta del Este conference and, in the opinion of many, the hour is quite late. For these reasons and many others, it is quite obvious that the citizens of the free world who enjoy the benefits of prosperity and freedom must try to help these southern neighbours who need a helping hand more than ever before in their long history. This help should be given not only in a spirit of charity but also with the firm conviction that our democratic way of life is right, that it must expand, thus offering a defence against the onslaught of communist propaganda which may reach within this country of ours.

(Translation):

Mr. Chairman, during our recent trip to South America, it was our privilege to visit the beautiful countries of Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil.

I should like to report briefly on what we have seen during our trip.

Uruguay is a small country of about 5 million people which is rightly considered in South America as a model of democratic life. The republic of Uruguay has a stable government; the democratic principles in which we believe and which are the basis of our existence are exactly those that are honoured in that country. As a result, the country's economy is sound. The value of its currency is fairly stable and inflation is practically unknown there.

The capital city of Uruguay, Montevideo, with a population of over 1 million, enjoys progress, prosperity and a way of life that angurs well for the future.

South of Uruguay, is the republic of Argentina, one of the most beautiful and richest countries in the world. Its soil is fertile and its natural resources plentiful. Undoubtedly, under a sound administration, it will once again occupy the predominant cultural and economic position it once held in our world.

Argentina still exercises a great influence in Latin America and elsewhere but the fact remains that that magnificent and wonderful country was practically ruined under Peron and the nefarious administration which was characteristic of his regime. Today, the majority of Argentines support President Frondesi, a remarkable man who has fully succeeded by his wisdom and inspired leadership in restoring order and prosperity in his country.

[Mr. Sevigny.l

Meeting President Frondisi, we got the impression that here was a man who could restore Argentina's fortune and give back to this extraordinary country the prosperity it unfortunately lost under the administration of Juan Peron and his associates.

Undoubtedly numerous problems are still facing the Frondesi administration, and the worst may well be the inordinate inflation prevailing there and which it will be difficult to control. We were given the opportunity to see what happens to a country where inflation exists and especially how harmful it is to the white collar class and to those with fixed salaries when prices are spiralling and goods getting scarce.

What we have seen in Argentina shows how advisable it is to try and prevent inflation and to protect Canada from that scourge.

Brazil is a vast country with a population, as I said earlier, of over 70 million people. Its population increases each year for, they say its birth rate is 3 per cent a year, which is the highest in the world.

That country has tremendous resources and since vast territories are still unexplored, one can presume that the wealth of that land of promise is even greater than one can conceive.

We had the privilege of visiting the city of Brasilia, a true example of what human imagination can create. That city is indeed a tribute to those who have faith in the concept of modern architecture and civil engineering. Five years ago, Brasilia was a barren plateau scorched by a burning sun. More than $750 million were spent for the construction of that capital city, and that is said to be only a beginning.

More than 100,000 people live in that city. Everywhere, one sees modem streets and ultramodern buildings. If one fault can be found with Brasilia, it may be that it is too modern and that its architecture is somewhat futurist.

Brasilia was selected for both sentimental and practical reasons: sentimental, because that city is located at the very mouths of South America's two great waterways, the Parana, running into Argentina, and the well-known Amazon; practical, in the sense that it was considered wise to erect that city in the very centre of the country, in order to have new industries and numerous villages developed around it.

Rio de Janeiro is still perhaps the finest city in the world, from a panoramic standpoint. There is also in that city an atmosphere of dynamic and progressive activity. Brazilians wish to forge ahead, to progress and to raise their standard of living.

During our stay there, the main topic of conversation revolved around the activities of ex-president Janio Quadros. He seemed to enjoy extraordinary personal popularity. We could feel, however, that sound thinking people were concerned about his leftist leanings, and it is certain that when he decided to award his country's highest decoration to Mr. Guevara, the Cuban minister of economic affairs, his action was resented by a great many people, and the result was to hasten his resignation.

(Text):

Mr. Chairman, I have only a few more sentences to finish my speech.

The Deputy Chairman:

Does the committee give unanimous consent to allowing the associate minister to finish?

Agreed.

(Translation):

Mr. Sevigny:

Mr. Chairman, what amazed me during the talks I had with Brazilian statesmen was their desire to co-operate with the western powers.

Communism has certainly no hold on Brazil and we have there allies who want to cooperate with us and to prevent, if possible, the birth of subversive movements in that country where huge illiterate populations are living, which, if they were to be subjected to communist influence, could easily cause a social and economic revolution.

(Text):

On our way back to Canada we stopped in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we had the great privilege of meeting the governor of the commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Senor Luis Munoz Marin, who is considered, and rightly so, in many circles as one of the great democratic leaders of our times. The governor gave us a wonderful reception and at a dinner which he gave in honour of the Canadian delegation we had the privilege of meeting the members of his cabinet and many other Puerto Rican leaders in the fields of finance and industry.

When Luis Munoz Marin was elected governor of Puerto Rico in 1949 there was very little activity in the island. The degree of illiteracy was very high. Poverty and its allies, that is misery and even crime, were everywhere. The economy was in a precarious condition. Through sound economic management, imaginative and progressive theories, Luis Munoz Marin completely changed the course of events. By offering special advantages to industries interested in the wonderful climate of the island, its vast labour pool and many other advantages, Luis Munoz Marin 90205-6-510J

Supply-External Affairs has in the short space of 12 years attracted over 700 new industries to the island of Puerto Rico. These new industries represent an investment of well over half a billion dollars. These new industries have meant work and employment for the people of Puerto Rico and also an ever-increasing level of well-being.

Schools have been built everywhere and as a result illiteracy has almost completely disappeared from the island. A slum clearance program has been carried out and is being continued, and all over the island can be seen low-cost housing developments where today live in comfort people who for generations had resided in the most abject slums. Magnificent hotels have been built and millions of tourists consider Puerto Rico as the ideal vacation land.

All this has been accomplished through peaceful methods without revolutions and crippling strikes. The government of Puerto Rico observes to the letter the rules of democratic government in which we believe and always strives to co-operate with those who wish to help them instead of resisting progress. What is happening in Puerto Rico through the application of democratic methods which we understand and in which we believe can also happen elsewhere in Latin America, and it is to be hoped that the example of Puerto Rico will serve as a model to other countries in Central and South America.

At this point it may be useful to establish a parallel between what has happened in Puerto Rico and what has happened and is still happening in Cuba. Both islands have the same climate, the same rich soil, the same products, and are populated by people of the same origin. In the one island, Puerto Rico, thanks to the better ways of democracy we see prosperity, expansion, a happy people, a booming industry, millions of tourists and, to sum up, a very bright future. In the other, Cuba, because of revolution, corruption in government and the desire by its present leaders to move to the left we see a chaotic economy, the rule of force and strength, despair and fear, empty hotels, a ruined tourist industry and the distrust of almost everyone in the immediate future of the island.

May I summarize by saying that after visiting Latin America I realize more than ever that, although here in North America we may have shortcomings and we accept the fact that a great deal remains to be done if we wish to move forward toward our great destiny, we nevertheless have managed to achieve success through the application of our methods of government and our search

Supply-External Affairs for an ever better and improved standard of living. We have achieved all this through peaceful methods and we have established as the basis of our mode of life the principle of freedom-freedom from fear and freedom from want. We have fought for this freedom and we shall undoubtedly fight again if it becomes necessary to protect it. But in order to protect this freedom we must share what we have with others who need our help and guidance. Our fate will be a better one if the fate of our neighbours in Latin America is also a better one. The people in Latin America believe in us. Let us be worthy of their trust and it may be that in the unity of the Americas in freedom, prosperity and well-ordained progress may rest the answer which we seek to the peace of the world.

Mr. Badanai:

Mr. Chairman, I was very much interested to hear the Associate Minister of National Defence speak on South America and as a result I decided that I would say a few words because Latin America has a special place in my heart. I was only a year old when my parents took me to Brazil. My father owned a coffee plantation there but unfortunately when I was about six years of age a younger brother of mine died of malaria. My mother became panicky, with the result that we packed our bags and went back to Italy, the country where I was born. Instead of selling coffee now in Brazil and probably doing business with the Minister of Trade and Commerce, because of the death of my little brother I was destined eventually to come to Canada to sell automobiles.

The story of Latin America today has to be told in the moods of her people as well as in statistics. One cannot generalize about Latin America any more than he can about Asia, Africa or Europe. It is true, however, that the people of Latin America do have certain things in common including ancestry, language and a colonial history, but probably the most important common characteristics are a fierce pride, impatient youth and a craving to break out of the condition of underdeveloped peoples living in underdeveloped lands.

I should like to deal very briefly with certain points relevant to the underdeveloped nature of Latin America as a geographical area. The potential resources of this area are enormous and thus far only the surface has been scratched. The main problem is lack of capital despite the fact that outside private investments and loans have been considerable.

The mineral resources of Latin America constitute her greatest wealth. Oil is abundant especially in the north of South America

and in the Caribbean. In the south the resources have not been effectively tapped because of lack of capital and technical know-how. Peru and Chile are rich in copper, Chile in nitrates, Brazil and Venezuela in iron, manganese, coal, gold and uranium.

In agriculture Latin America's production per capita lags behind the rapid growth of population but the soil is rich and can grow sufficient food if farmers are taught how to get higher yields by the use of modern machinery and techniques and if storage and transportation facilities are installed to spread equitably the products of agriculture. One of the greatest dangers is the one-crop economy pattern which is so typical in Brazil with coffee, and I know something about that because my father was in the coffee business there. The same thing also applies to other Latin American nations with respect to other crops. Such practices place the nations concerned at the mercy of world price fluctuations. The economic problems of the area are largely a result of the inadequate use of resources for reasons that range from lack of capital through low productivity, dependence on world prices and poor administration to the selfish shortsightedness of governments and business.

Internally the situation is generally one of inflation and skyrocketing costs of living which sap the strength and development capacity of most of the nations of the area. Consequently there are problems of balance of payments which generally are unfavourable, although Latin America's trade with Canada alone amounting to approximately half a billion dollars last year underlines the region's commercial importance.

I should like to deal at greater length with some of the basic political problems of Latin America. The United States secretary of state recently told the council of the organization of American states that an ideology foreign to the western hemisphere has little chance of taking root in Latin America. An article in the April 1960 issue of Foreign Affairs, written by Professor Frank Tan-nenbaum of Columbia University, gives reason to question not only the American secretary of state's optimism but also the rosy impression left by Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs in his speech of February 10 this year when he said that all 20 republics of Latin America are "imbued with the love of freedom and all are very responsible members of the United Nations". That reference may be found at page 936 of Hansard of that date. Professor Tannenbaum

does not even discuss the danger of communism in Latin America, but the situation he describes sounds very familiar to those of us who have watched the pattern of communist revolution in other parts of the world.

According to the Foreign Affairs article to which I referred, Latin America has not developed genuine liberal democracies. The only form of political authority which typifies government in Latin America is personal authority. The only way this personal political authority can be transferred is through violence or death. In any stable democracy there must be freedom of association to organize political parties as alternatives to the party controlling the government. In Cuba, however, and this is typical of Latin America generally, what seemed to be political parties on the surface were not parties at all in our sense of the word. They were merely groups of office seekers in search of a leader who would authorize their misuse of public funds for private ends. Sometimes the forms of democracy have been observed, but only the forms. The real pattern of Latin American history for the last 150 years has been dictatorship, rebellion and again dictatorship. There seems to be little hope of change in this pattern.

Professor Tannenbaum does not draw the clear implications of his study but they are there to be considered by all who have responsibility for the planning of western policy. Mr. Khrushchev has shown that he understands the term peaceful co-existence in an active rather than a passive sense. In the case of Latin America it is entirely likely that Mr. Khrushchev is considering the possibility of shortening the time when communism will, in his words, inevitably triumph. So far it is true that there has been little communist penetration in the region, but if Professor Tannenbaum is correct South America may well be the next continent on the Kremlin's list. The situation he describes is exactly the type of situation in which communism thrives.

For most of the people of Latin America the political choice is not between dictatorship and democracy but is between a dictatorship which looks as if it were endeavouring to give them enough to eat and one which does not give that appearance. If the west wishes to keep Latin America out of the soviet camp it should adopt policies which in the long run will make possible a third choice, namely a system of politics under which peaceful changes of government can take place.

In his speech of February 10 to which I have already referred, the Secretary of State

Supply-External Affairs for External Affairs advocated increased trade with Latin America, expansion of cultural relations, the possibility of official visits, and the strengthening of diplomatic relations, but not a word was said about helping the ordinary people of the Latin American republics who are in many cases left or even kept in poverty, ignorance and ill health in homelands which are rapidly becoming overpopulated because no one cares enough to make the considerable effort necessary to lift them from the feudal past to an industrial future.

As the minister said, Latin America is indeed an area in which a great deal more can be done than has been done in the past. I hope that when the hon. gentleman spoke about extending cultural relations he had in mind something that would be of direct benefit to the people as opposed to governments. For example, if we engaged in an exchange of primary, secondary and even university teachers, considerable benefits might well flow to the people of Latin America over a period of years. Similarly there might be an extension of activity in the field of student exchanges to include, with the assistance of scholarships, the children of the less well-to-do in Latin America.

In closing I wish to quote from an article in the March 1, 1958 issue of Saturday Night:

In a world that tends to see the fight for freedom often in terms of the struggle between the soviets and their chained peoples, the repeated violence in the Latin American republics, as regimes come and go, testifies at least as much to the vitality there of liberty as an ideal as it does to the inability, as yet, of the Latins to find their own answers to political stability.

We might be able to help the peoples of Latin America find some of their own answers to the problems of politics if we concerned ourselves with the basic importance of helping to establish for them a sound foundation of education. It might be said that Canada can do little here. I reply that in education even more than in economics a multiple effect is achieved. After all, Christ taught only 12 disciples but it was not long, as history shows, before the Roman world was Christian.

If we help teach the ways of liberal democracy not only to the people of Latin America but to the Africans and Asians, we may well be doing something for which governments are not noted, namely having due regard for the long term interests of the nation and indeed our entire civilization. I earnestly believe we should consider joining the organization of American states which is holding an empty chair for Canada to occupy.

Mr. Stinson:

Mr. Chairman, following as I do the Associate Minister of National Defence

8086 HOUSE OF COMMONS

Supply

External Affairs and the hon. member for Fort William, I wish to congratulate those two hon. gentlemen on the very helpful and informative speeches they have just made which I am sure will increase the knowledge of hon. members of Latin American affairs. I think traditionally Canadians have looked east and west rather than south, and when they have looked south, many times they have not looked further south than the United States of America. I hope other hon. members will have opportunities to travel in South America and that there will be other occasions for members of the House of Commons to build up relationships and friendships among themselves and people in that continent who are in positions of responsibility.

The first thing I wish to say tonight, Mr. Chairman, is to urge the government to do everything it can to stop further nuclear testing. I must say that tonight my mind is a long way from here and from South America; rather it is in that area of the world where four bombs have been dropped recently and from which area at this very time radioactive dust is drifting to other parts of the world. No matter where that dust settles it can do nothing but harm. I urge the government to do everything it can to stop those tests above the ground, under the ground, or in the laboratory.

The press secretary to the President of the United States of America, apparently speaking for the administration, said that new United States tests were necessary because, as he put it, important advances can be made by further scientific developments. Since the United States already has a stockpile of atomic weapons which it said last week was wholly adequate for the defence of the free world, I cannot see that further testing will do anything but speed up the tempo of the arms race.

There may be many factors in this most complex problem which are unknown to me, Mr. Chairman. I heard the Leader of the Opposition on television the other night. He made his comments in this regard. He said that there might be things of which he had no personal knowledge and therefore, as I recollect his remarks, he did not want to make a dogmatic statement; but I say that the most important thing for this parliament to consider tonight is the steps that our government can take to put an end to those explosions at the earliest possible moment.

I wish to take part in this debate for three other reasons. The first is that I wish to express my appreciation of the services and leadership which have been given recently

by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. All of us know of the intense interest which the present Prime Minister has shown in international affairs throughout his public career. He attended the founding conference of the United Nations, and at every session of parliament since that time he has put forward constructive proposals for preventing war and for creating conditions which would help to give the better life to people in other countries who are oppressed or who are suffering because of being without proper food, adequate housing, clothing or educational opportunities.

I thought I had heard the Prime Minister of Canada in his finest hour on September 26, 1960, when he spoke at the United Nations. He made a speech in the United Nations assembly which was unanimously accepted as a brilliant answer to the false accusations of Mr. Khrushchev which had been made the week before. But on September 1, 1961, he made a statement before the Canadian Bar Association which I think the world greatly needed and which surpassed all previous speeches he has made on international affairs. I am sure this speech will have an effect on the course of events.

Some of our critics say that Canada should take the lead among the middle powers. I say that with that speech in Winnipeg the Prime Minister will give the lead to the great powers. On behalf of the citizens of York Centre I wish to express my gratitude to him.

Since parliament last debated foreign affairs the Secretary of State for External Affairs has spoken for Canada on many international problems. These days some persons are so appalled by the immensity of these problems that they think only of the gloomy side of things and talk in generalities. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is not one of those. He has won for himself at NATO, at the United Nations and at Geneva the reputation of being an optimist, but an optimist who believes that optimism can only be sustained if you work hard day by day to find solutions to the problems at hand. This has been the policy followed by our country on disarmament.

Canada must continue to advocate means of bringing about negotiations in the face of the most discouraging conditions. We must attempt again and again to devise means of bringing about negotiations and if the means that are proposed fail we must try again. If members of this parliament advocated any other policy or sought to disparage-and this has been done from time to time-the conscientious efforts made by our foreign minister in this regard how could they explain themselves to their constituents or to their children

who see over one third of the national tax revenues devoted to maintaining and equipping armed forces?

I wonder whether any hon. member has had the experience, as I have had recently, of trying to explain to a 13 year old child how it has come to pass that in 1961, having the benefit of all the wisdom and inventive genius of the great minds of 20 centuries, the leaders of the world today are snarling at each other, threatening war and talking about dropping a bomb which would destroy millions of people. All I can say is that when you try to explain this you realize how bad things have become and how important it is that Canada continue to press for disarmament.

The second reason I have for speaking in this debate is that I believe I have an obligation to my constituents to say in parliament what I think about world affairs. In saying this, Mr. Chairman, I am fully conscious of how little I know. The week before last I was in Europe and had conversations there with some Canadian foreign service officers and other people who have some knowledge of European affairs. When one considers what is happening in Berlin and knows that our leaders have the advice of experienced and trained experts one has reason to wonder whether anything one can say can be of any help at all. I think members of parliament have a duty to try to assist the experts. We have better facilities and opportunities for becoming and keeping informed about those problems than most of our constituents have. No matter how complex some of the problems appear we must try to understand them and make suggestions. The right to make suggestions in parliament is a right which is given to very few Canadians. I hope hon. members will forgive me for stating the obvious. I am very much aware of the privilege which is mine in being here and having the right to say what I think about these things. I recall hearing the hon. member for Greenwood speak years ago on this subject, and I have not forgotten what he said. What an excellent example is set by that hon. gentleman for those of us who have arrived here fairly recently.

The third reason I wish to speak tonight, Mr. Chairman, is to make some proposals. The other day I read a statement attributed to Senator J. William Fulbright, who is chairman of the United States Senate committee on foreign relations. He said this:

I, for one, am not at all certain that the principles and values of western civilization represent the common aspirations of all peoples.

I was surprised to read this because, like the Washington correspondent for Maclean's

Supply-External Affairs magazine who used this quotation, I have a deep admiration and respect for Mr. Fulbright and generally agree with the speeches he has made which I have seen in print. Hon. members may be glad to know that I do not propose tonight to give a discourse on the principles and values of western civilization. It does seem to me, however, that if properly defined they do represent the common aspirations of all peoples. What are they? I think the principles are derived from Judaism and Christianity; that there is a God who loves all people and if people understand love and practice honesty and charity they can aspire to a satisfying life. I know that these things are not fully understood by many people in Canada or elsewhere, but I think there is a force which is pressing all of us to live by this principle and a deep-seated desire in all of us to do so.

I think that the values are derived from the ancient civilizations of Greece, Rome and western Europe. What are they? The first, of course, is freedom which I think is the right to think and act without arbitrary control or direction by the government. I think that the other values are companion values to political freedom, which have gradually come into common acceptance with the passage of time. Does freedom not represent the common aspiration of all peoples? Again, we are dealing with something which is not understood by many people struggling each day in Latin America or southeast Asia, as well as many other parts of the world, to get enough to eat and drink. Many of these people are unable to read and cannot be expected to know the meaning of freedom. I think it is one of the innate desires of all human beings. I think, therefore, on this count also Senator Fulbright may be wrong.

It is fashionable in some quarters these days, Mr. Chairman, to say that western countries, especially the United States, in trying to impose their standards and methods have done more harm than good. Books like "The Ugly American" and "A Nation of Sheep" are given a big play. If you do not agree with these books, you are considered a reactionary. Leaving aside the massive economic assistance which has been given by the United States to the newly emerging nations I say, with few exceptions, that government has a good record in its attempt to establish conditions which would give people political freedom.

I think also, as does the Prime Minister of Canada, that the time has come for precise declarations on the part of the non-communist countries of their principles and aims. This must be done and done soon to overcome the phony image of western ideals and the

Supply-External Affairs western way of life which is being presented in communist countries and by communist agents in the less developed areas. It will take perhaps a little time to do this, Mr. Chairman, and a lot of conferring with other governments.

But there is one thing Canada can do alone. I propose that the government call, for the year 1962 or 1963, a conference on understanding. Each member of the United Nations should be asked to nominate 50 student delegates to this conference. I suggest that it be held at one of the great Canadian universities and that the Canadian conference of universities be asked to look after the administrative arrangements. I calculate the cost of such a conference as $15 million, which is less than 1 per cent of what this country is now spending yearly on national defence.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I know there will be cynics and others throughout this country who will say that this will be nothing but an interesting gathering of students and academics who may enrich their lives to some extent by coming to this country and attending seminars, having conversations and touring about. However, I say it is terribly important that at the earliest opportunity we bring together as many students as possible, especially from those areas of the world in which there are limited educational opportunities, to meet with political and academic leaders in this country. With proper planning this conference could make a significant contribution to understanding. I believe that a wide range of subjects could be discussed. I do not believe it would be difficult to attract a voluntary corps of Canadian university professors and others, and as much would be gained by informal meetings with these people and students from abroad as from the formal sessions. This country has the resources to undertake such a project, and I hope it will attract the imagination and interest of other members in this parliament and the support of the government.

The next proposal I should like to make, Mr. Chairman, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be pleased to hear, requires no money at all from the government. It is a request I should like to make of the businessmen of this country. Hon. members will have read recently in the newspapers about the landing in India, Ceylon and Sarawak of the first contingent of Canadian overseas volunteers, known in Quebec as "Vol-ontaires Canadiens Outre-Mer". Under sponsorship of this private association, 15 young Canadians representing most parts of Canada have undertaken a year's voluntary service in these areas. They receive a small subsistence allowance from the host government.

Where there is a Canadian representative, a contingency fund is administered to meet unusual conditions and, on instructions from the government, the Canadian high commissioners are keeping a watchful eye on the volunteers. I think Canadians can be proud of the fact that these young people are now in the field and have taken up their duties before any members of the Kennedy peace corps have left the United States.

I would not want hon. members to think, however, that the Canadian overseas volunteers have been in competition with the peace corps. The Canadian overseas volunteers are not in competition with anybody. They are not out there seeking honour and glory. Their purpose is to serve in a humble way in industry, agriculture, public administration, commerce or medicine under the direction of the host government, and to promote international understanding and brotherhood by informing themselves and other Canadians of the history, culture, traditions, political and economic life of the people among whom they are working. Two weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, I stood on a dock in London and watched these 15 young Canadian students standing beside the rail of a ship leaving for their areas of voluntary service. It was a moving experience and I am sure that if businessmen who may read this speech can imagine that experience, they will rally to the cause and send in their contributions.

These people, leaving aside opportunities to enhance their financial position and going out into an environment quite alien to that to which they are accustomed and working under conditions which are strange and extraordinary, were prepared to do one year at least of sacrificial service. If we, sitting back here in the relatively easy conditions of the home front, fail to give these young men and women and their successors a reasonable amount of financial support, I say that we have missed a great opportunity to serve the world through them and to serve our own country. Canadian overseas volunteers originated with a suggestion made by Dr. Donald K. Faris, a Canadian of great experience in Asia and now working with UNICEF in India. The chief academic advisers have been Dr. Nathan Keyfitz who is a former director of the Colombo plan bureau and Professor Yves Martin of Laval University. As I have said, a first year's pilot program is now well under way. Its success will depend on the work of the volunteers themselves, but they would not have got out there had it not been for the efforts of Mr. and Mrs. Keith Spicer, whose rare qualities have been brought to bear on

every phase of this project. I wish to acknowledge also the work of M. Michel Cot6 and his student associates at Laval.

The Canadian overseas volunteers undertaking has been commended by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I now call on Canadian businessmen for financial support. It is an investment in young Canada, a modest contribution to people in other countries and a way of promoting good will and international understanding.

On September 19 the next regular meeting of the United Nations assembly will get under way. At the last assembly Prime Minister Diefenbaker said this:

Let us not leave this place without some hope for mankind. Let us instead say to the peoples that death's pale flag shall not again be raised in war, and that fear shall be lifted from the hearts and souls of men.

A year has passed since that speech was made and now there is greater reason for fear than there was last September. There is not really very much to be cheerful about these days; and so I say this: Let us not leave this parliament without doing something in the international community to raise the hopes of Canadians.

Mr. Pitman:

Mr. Chairman, as this parliament resumes sitting, it does so in an extremely serious state of mind, perhaps more serious than for many years. We are indeed closer to war tonight than we have been at any time since 1945. The statements of the Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have given us some indication of the reality of this situation.

The Berlin crisis I think has indeed destroyed one myth. I refer to the belief that we could fight limited wars over matters of vital concern to the great powers. It was some years ago that Mr. Dulles carried through the brink of war strategy in the United States, the strategy of the deterrent. Then the United States changed to a belief that wars could be fought with conventional weapons, that no one would be inhuman enough to bring into action the ultimate in weaponry. However, we now realize that the brink of war diplomacy works both ways, and that we can both blackmail each other with super bombs and with the horrors of our weapons. We have realized with nuclear testing that the threat of nuclear war and the Berlin issue are tied very tightly into one bundle. Tonight as we sit here we realize that one fatal mistake could destroy us that we are indeed but one phone call and one finger away from annihilation. I shudder, Mr. Chairman, when I hear of the extent of the preparedness of the strategic air command, on 24 hour alert, with 90205-6-511

Supply-External Affairs bombers always in the air and with the possibility of initiating an attack within seconds. I think the tension of this situation is almost unbelievable and perhaps beyond what human capacity can continue to accept. Indeed, one man has suggested it is statistically certain that if these conditions continue bombs will drop and perhaps sooner than we would care to think.

So we stand tonight on the brink, almost totally inured to the statistics contained in the latest book on nuclear war, namely that the United States has the explosive equivalent of 10 tons of t.n.t. for every man. woman and child on the surface of this earth, sufficient indeed to destroy ten times the number of its people. Perhaps one area in which Canada could make some contribution is in continuing to bring before the nations of this world the horror and the atrocity which a nuclear war would create. I think it is time that we took a second look at nuclear war and thought of winning a war or surviving one. Certainly we want to do everything we can to survive and we congratulate this government upon the suggestions they made this afternoon which will come to pass. But let us not make any mistake about the matter; millions will die.

One cannot read the story of the Berlin issue since 1945 without coming away indeed impressed with its complexity. In a sense, it is a matter of our own sins coming upon us. All of us remember in 1945, as the allied armies marched through Germany, there was a suggestion that we should carry through and capture Berlin. Then as a result of change in strategy-and I do not think we need to bother to assign the blame for this change in strategy-it was decided we would not take Berlin. By that mistake, through failure to realize that the strategy at the end of the last war would decide the problems of the post-war period, we have brought many difficulties upon ourselves. However, we cannot rectify our problems in clouds of radioactive dust.

I think there are two things that could bring war, namely the one I suggested, that fatal mistake, and second emotional oversimplification. I think it is important that we should not misuse history. When we talk of Munich in regard to the Berlin issue we are confusing the issue. Certainly when we talk of Poland, we are doing nothing to foster an understanding of this situation. Would that the issues were so clear as the blatant militarism which brought about the invasion of Poland, even though that indeed would bring upon us the holocaust we desire to avoid. Here we have a situation which has no real precedent in history. We have a divided city, one half cut off by 100 miles

Supply-External Affairs of territory from the political entity which is its rightful state. The worst thing we can do is to try to reduce this complexity to an emotional catch phrase such as to rescue the west Berliners from Russian tyranny or, on the other hand, guard the socialist people's state from western imperialism. The worst thing also that we can do is to inject into this political situation the heart-rending problems of the east German refugees. I know all of us are concerned; indeed perhaps some of us are even heartbroken about the situation of these people. However, we have no right to expect that West Berlin can be continued as a means of subverting the east German government. If it becomes a matter of helping to oppress people by our foreign policy we are going to be in serious difficulties indeed, as this will mean real war.

We have much to answer for in Angola, in South Africa and French North Africa. The only way we can help these people on the other side of the iron curtain is by a long and continuous process of working toward peace and convincing the U.S.S.R. that the heavy hand is less and less necessary. That alone is the final answer.

Therefore Canada's role must be to bring the powers together. We must negotiate and it must be done quickly. I think the Secretary of State for External Affairs was very wise when he said that one of the things that has certainly confused the problem in West Berlin is the fact that an election is going on and you have each of the politicians of West Berlin and west Germany seeking to sell their electorate a bill of goods that they indeed are going to protect Germany's interests and unite their peoples. Even Mr. Khrushchev suggested that things will be much better after September 17, as our own Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested. But we must bring them together to negotiate before the area of negotiation disappears. We must bring both sides closer and closer together. The area of negotiation is becoming less and less. The national pride of each one is being bound up within certain terms and certain items of any negotiated peace treaty and it may come to the point where every concession becomes appeasement, where every agreement becomes seeming treachery. Again, we must bring the powers together to negotiate. We must do so because this period of crisis and tension puts power into the hands of the very group we should fear most.

We tend to think of Russia as a monolithic state very much like Nazi Germany. The two do not compare. Mr. Khrushchev is not Hitler. He does not have the power. The Russian people are not the German people

with the historical background of the German people nor are the doctrines of communism those of nazism. They bear little relationship when you come down to actual analysis. There is cut and thrust to their politics and a constant striving for power. We encourage the military elite of Russia to ascendancy, when we pose as intransigent.

I think perhaps the greatest disaster of the U-2 incident was that we placed the men we should fear most in control of the Russian state. We must come down to essentials.

What has Mr. Khrushchev actually said; what has he promised? It is very easy to say we cannot trust what Mr. Khrushchev says. But if we come to that point, really what we are saying is that there is no answer but pushing the button. Mr. Khrushchev, in his answer to President Kennedy's speech, said:

Following from the international law which cannot be disregarded, X should like to repeat once more that by concluding a peace treaty with the German democratic republic we do not intend to infringe upon any lawful interests of the western powers. Barring of access to West Berlin, blockade of West Berlin, is entirely out of the question.

That is the statement of Mr. Khrushchev himself. Are we going to war because we will not recognize a state which exists? Mr. Trygve Lie, the former secretary general of the United Nations, suggested once that the Korean war was brought on by our refusal to recognize red China. Are we going to war to perpetuate a myth that we are determined to create a united Germany? Are we going to war to bolster the national pride of either the United States, which is coming out of the fiasco of Cuba, or because of the injured pride of the U.S.S.R. which is somewhat reluctant to accept the fact that refugees are leaving the socialist heaven of East Germany? Are we going to war to maintain a status quo which we ourselves do not accept, in terms of West Berlin and a recognition of East Germany? I think these are the essentials which we as Canadians must bring before the nations of the world by negotiation.

As I drove down here this morning I was impressed, as was the hon. member for York South, by the very fact that in spite of all the technological advances and the magic which we can now perform with the human mind we cannot seem to solve these human relationships. I could not help feeling, perhaps emotionally, as I drove past groups of children who stood on the side of the highway waiting for the school bus to come, what a tragedy it was that we as members of parliament were driving down here to discuss war and the possibility of war.

Once again we must negotiate. We must find the area of fear, of blind, unreasoning

terror on both sides. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said that NATO was set up as a defensive organization-and it was. We agree with that and we agree that it has played a real part. But surely he would admit that the line between defensive and offensive really does not exist.

When Mr. Khrushchev or any Russian citizen hears Mr. Adenauer speak of a free and united Germany, when he sees German troops and remembers the effects of two world wars; when he sees I.R.B.M. bases being erected, can he possibly regard this as defensive? On the other hand when we see the resumption of nuclear tests we cannot see this as defensive at all and we cannot see how it can be regarded as a method of keeping the peace. We must seek out the areas of fear. We must find a neutral zone in Europe. We must separate the powers in this one area which can bring conflict.

Canada has every right to play the role of mediator; to take more and more action. Why? Not just because she is a middle power, but because she alone is geographically in the middle. We need time. We need time desperately. Canada's role can be that of cooling the tempers. It is amazing to look back over the last 10 years and see problems which were at the time insoluble. We can look back at the situation in the Middle East. I can remember reading articles that this was an insoluble problem; Egypt was determined by its foreign policy to annihilate the Israeli state and would accept nothing else. The Israelis were a nation with modern western weapons and were determined to expand, and there could be nothing but war which would eventually lead us into total war.

Because of a Canadian solution; because Canada took the initiative at one point we have not achieved a long term solution, because we cannot find any long term solutions, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he says the tension will rise and fall like a barometer. But we can at least seek time.

I can remember Cyprus. We remember the atrocities committed day after day on British soldiers who were killed by Greeks and Turks. Last week we found Archbishop Makarios standing forth in the role of a man of moderation. We forget that these solutions stopped war and that these solutions at one point would have been branded as appeasement by one side or the other.

When the Korean war took place, at one point the United Nations decided they would unite Korea, and anything else at that time was going to be regarded as appeasement. We determined that we would not have war by allowing the use of certain weaponry or the bombing north of the Yalu river and some of 90205-6-51 li

Supply-External Affairs the military plans of those who were in that theatre of war. We have achieved a solution; we have not had general war. This is not a time for standing on the sidelines and cheering. I was concerned when I heard the Prime Minister's first statement regarding the use of Berlin as strengthening NATO. I was much heartened by his second statement in his Winnipeg speech. I am waiting to be enthused by a dynamic, unprecedented crusade to achieve peace.

We have not only those on the other side to fear. I become concerned when I hear statements by-I will not call them warmongers, because they are men who honestly believe they are serving the west and democracy in the best way. But when a man says that we may have to strike first, as General Thomas Power of the United States strategic air command has said, or "I submit you will not deter a war unless you have the capability to start a war", I become concerned about our side too. In this crusade we may have to step on a few American toes but we will be their best ally-

Mr. Drysdale:

What about Russian toes?

Mr. Pitman:

And even Russian toes too-if we save both of them from the irrational minority within their own nation. There should be a crusade to convince Mr. Khrushchev that his fears are groundless. I think our own Secretary of State for External Affairs has done a great deal in this particular area. We must show that we are ready for the alternative to military competition which is economic competition. Of course, the suspicion of at least part of the communist world is that we do not want that kind of competition, that we are not ready for it. I believe it will require sacrifice, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested, but it will be the sacrifice of giving more and more aid, a greater percentage of our gross national product, of giving more opportunities for education, in other words of raising the level of the two thirds of the people of the world who go to bed hungry every night to the point where communism is not in the least attractive.

This will require courage, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested. It will be the courage to believe in the good intentions of our seeming opponents, not necessarily the courage or rather the foolhardiness which leads us into high temperature incineration, waving a flag and screaming slogans. This other kind of courage may be even greater. As the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested, it will require a faith that will move mountains, maybe even a faith and a good will which may in the end move even the Soviet tyranny in the

Supply-External Affairs direction of the west. Time is on our side and time is what Canada must fight for. The Russia of Khrushchev is not the Russia of Stalin. It has moved in our direction and we must continue to encourage that move.

There are other issues to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs and his department must give great consideration even though they are overshadowed by the present threat of Berlin. There is the recognition of communist China and bringing this issue before the United Nations. We in this corner believe that this must come, that there must perhaps be two Chinas. Otherwise we can have no real disarmament and, indeed, as the hon. member for Essex East suggested, it may well be that pressure is being exerted from the Far East. It would be well for us to attempt to relieve that pressure. It may mean that we must criticize our allies when necessary.

I was greatly interested in the remarks made about South America. This indeed is a problem on our own doorstep and one with which we must come to grips very soon.

I too believe we must have faith and the place where that faith can best be placed is in the United Nations. We must build up and support the United Nations as Canada and the Prime Minister have done by supporting the secretary general to the last ditch. We must build up the strength of the United Nations by making it in fact a police force. There indeed is where our faith can best be put.

Mr. While:

Mr. Chairman, I think the house has listened with a great deal of interest today to the speeches made by various members on external affairs and can be proud of the considered judgment they have displayed in this field. I cannot apply that comment to the last speech to which we have listened. If comfort is going to be taken from that speech it will be in Moscow and not in Ottawa. I would ask the Canadian people to read, mark and learn the aims and ideas of the New party if this is an indication of their left wing thinking. I seriously commend to the Canadian people sober second thought with regard to the speech to which we have just listened.

All history is written for our learning and yet we fail to take a proper interest and learn the lessons from it that we should. How soon we forget the lessons of history and how little we heed them. Today we heard of neutralism and of 25 nations meeting in Belgrade that have not committed themselves either to the west or to the east. It came as a great shock to those 25 nations when the three-year nuclear test ban was broken. They were horrified. How soon we forget Hungary, Tibet and other places in the world. How soon we forget the promises that were made

two or three times in our lifetime only to be broken when the time was propitious. Eventually all nations must choose. There will be no neutralism if a war should come, which God forbid.

Nehru's neutralism received a rude shock when Tibet was attacked, a peace loving neighbour that had never transgressed against any of the other Asian peoples. All they desired to do was to live in peace with their neighbours but that did not prevent them from being overrun. We should not forget that. I was glad, as I am sure were the house and the people of Canada to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs announce, as we have all known before, that Canada stands for peace, and also his references to the strenuous efforts that have been made by Canada and Canada's representatives to maintain peace in a troubled world.

Events of the past few days have only served to emphasize the conditions that have existed since the end of the war in 1945. An armed and jittery world jumps from one crisis to another. I ask hon. members, has Canada, has the western world created any of these crises? The answer is no. Let hon. members turn their thoughts for a moment to Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Korea, Laos, Malaya and Tibet. Berlin, of course, has always been a source of annoyance since the close of the war.

Let us not forget or fail to understand the march of events. Two world wars indicated that the United States of America tried to evade entanglement in those conflicts up to the eleventh hour. Why? Because they were a peaceful nation. They did not want to be involved in war. That has been their history. I say this because they are a peace loving people. They are our neighbours and we probably know them better than any other nation. The last resort, as far as they are concerned, is war. I hope the whole world will realize this. Consequently they and the western allies are being pushed on all fronts as never before.

Berlin at the moment-and I emphasize those words "at the moment"-is the powder keg. We well remember that the western world has always had its quislings, traitors and collaborators. We still have them with us. Let us not forget those who in the past days would sell their country to an enemy.

Last week there appeared in the London Free Press and I assume in other Canadian newspapers the words of a Canadian who said that Berlin was not worth the life of one Canadian. I say that is not the issue involved. If we were to sacrifice Berlin, would that guarantee peace in the world? I say it would only guarantee another crisis and then another crisis would follow as inevitably

as night follows day. If surrendering West Berlin would solve the world's problems and Russia's demands would cease, possibly we could agree; but surrender does not carry that guaranty.

Earlier today reference was made to the mass migration of people from East Berlin to West Berlin. This is a revelation to the world if it will but heed. It is to be noted that there is no great rush on the part of people from West Berlin in seeking entry into East Berlin. This points out how valuable freedom is in the eyes of many people. They are prepared to leave their homes and sacrifice all they own to seek freedom under a western regime. If the east has so much to offer, why is there no trek from west to east?

Through the inspiring statement made today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and through the excellent speech made in Winnipeg last week by our Prime Minister Canada's position, its role and the course it should follow have been made abundantly clear. I advise all hon. members to read and re-read that speech in which the Prime Minister outlined the course we should follow. Canada has an important date with destiny if we can interpret to the east and the west the true nature of the problems facing us. Canada can be of tremendous service to the world in its search for peace. We are without territorial ambitions, without prejudices and we understand both our American neighbours and the people of the United Kingdom.

In addition we are a member of that loosely knit community of nations known as the commonwealth. The commonwealth is pledged to aid in every possible way the search for peaceful solutions. Today we hear much loose talk about colonialism, but within the commonwealth more nations have achieved freedom than through any other individual means. I do not refer to an enforced colonialism such as we see in Latvia, in other Baltic states and elsewhere. Having achieved freedom these new nations have decided of their own free will to remain within the commonwealth. I again ask all Canadians: does appeasement pay? We can go back in history and we find that history answers: "No." I again ask: Would surrender in Berlin eliminate world crisis? Again history replies that it would not; in fact, as I mentioned before the changes of increasing the incidence of crises would be greater.

May I remind the committee that all NATO nations are pledged under the United Nations charter to settle international disputes peacefully, with security and justice. NATO is not an offensive organization but is designed purely for defence. Last fall the United Nations was under fire from the Soviet

Supply-External Affairs bloc. It was challenged as it has never been challenged before. I believe this gave to the free world some indication of the ruthlessness of the cold war in which we are engaged.

It is interesting to note that during the founding convention of the New Democratic party held recently a motion was moved that would have had the effect of urging Canada to withdraw from NATO. This motion did not pass, but I point out to the committee that those elements are still within that party and constitute its vociferous, radical, left wing supporters. I ask whose friends they are and who is encouraged when they advocate such a move. Surely not the west.

I wish to deal briefly with NATO and NORAD, one an organization for the defence of Europe and the other for the defence of North America. As I mentioned, the challenge to the leadership of the United Nations was never so evident as it was last fall. Destroy the United Nations and what has the world to depend on for peaceful solutions of world problems? In spite of its obvious value the United Nations has been made a sounding board for political propaganda. The unprecedented attack on the organization last fall is an indication of the desire of the Soviet bloc to destroy the organization.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs has worked unceasingly for disarmament at Geneva, at the United Nations and on every conceivable occasion. How can we continue to negotiate in good faith when solemn agreements are reduced to mere scraps of paper? In spite of this the minister reiterated today Canada's desire to negotiate in a calm, dispassionate spirit with a view to finding constructive solutions to our problems.

In 1945 the United Nations charter was signed by 55 nations. As was mentioned earlier, our Prime Minister was present at that meeting in San Francisco. Today there are 100 members of this organization. If the institution is to survive and serve mankind of necessity changes will have to be made.

NATO was bom as a result of the Czechoslovakian coup of 1948 and arose from the fear that Russia could and would march across Europe. One of the objectives of NATO has not yet been realized, the social, political and economic understanding among NATO nations.

Ever since the portfolio of the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been held by the present minister he has stated and restated Canada's policy that we are against nuclear testing, with no strings attached.

After three years of agreement Russia suddenly commences nuclear tests. Why, I ask. To create an atmosphere of fear. Fear is probably the greatest phychological weapon

Supply-External Affairs in the hands of the Soviets and the timing on their part has been excellent. If we cannot continue to agree on nuclear tests how are we to agree on disarmament? The Prime Minister led the way in suggesting to Canada and to the world to avoid hysteria, to be calm, to endeavour to understand the grave implications, the threats aimed at Berlin and at Germany, to be reasonable but to be firm. Would retreat improve our position? Experience and history answer no. It would only serve to show the world that our pledged word to protect the rights, which the United States, the United Kingdom and the U.S.S.R. gave in 1945 and reiterated after the cessation of the blockade of Berlin in May, 1949, meant nothing; that these guarantees were of no avail and that we were not prepared to back them up. The Canadian people should consider our solemn pledges and the disastrous results of repudiation.

I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech concerning South America. The winds of change are blowing. The world envies the progress of Canada, the Americas and the west. Strangely, however, some governments somehow fail to realize that through freedom of the individual, through democracy, through the ability of the individual to enjoy the fruits of his labour, Canada and the Americas have achieved this high standard of living in fewer than three centuries. I think this is fundamental. The individual should be free and when he is free he has an opportunity to enjoy the fruits of his labour without molestation from governments.

I now wish to say a word or two about foreign aid and some other aspects of external affairs. With respect to external aid, Canadians generally approve our foreign aid policies. However, I am of the opinion that a greater number of Canadians are now questioning the effectiveness of our foreign aid policies. Canadians are generous. They approach external aid as a Christian problem but they are also beginning to ask, what have we to show for our external aid dollar? They do not believe in a Colombo plan that extends into perpetuity, I have believed in and advocated increased aid for education. How can this best be accomplished? I am of the opinion that technical education can best be carried out in the recipient countries, but that the other types of education are probably given to better advantage when the student of the recipient country is brought to Canada. I am being rather general in this, but I am of the opinion that that is the most effective method and I am hopeful that an increase may be possible in student exchange in this field of extending education to foreign lands. To those hon. members who are particularly interested

in this phase of external affairs I would recommend the report of the external affairs committee where this problem was gone into in detail.

How can the rank and file of the citizens of new nations in Africa and elsewhere achieve a higher standard of living? Dams and other tangible things are spectacular but do they reach the needy people of those countries?

As I said earlier, I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech concerning South America. I am a realist and I ask how can 18 million people increase appreciably the living standards of the teeming millions living in abject poverty in other countries of the world? Unless the governments of those particular countries are prepared to co-operate and help-I know our government is-unless they are prepared to make it possible for those people to enjoy the fruits of their labour, then anything we may do may be, I fear, in vain.

Prior to this century slavery guaranteed to a few a high living standard and a subliving standard and hard labour to the others. Democracy is the opposite of this, and freedom is the answer to those problems.

I am going to add a further word about the commonwealth. I view with a certain amount of alarm and misgiving recent developments within the commonwealth. Without condoning the actions of any one country within the commonwealth, may I say the stage is being set for interference in the internal affairs of a sister nation on the part of commonwealth countries. This could wreck the commonwealth. Nothing would please the Soviets better. The commonwealth, as I mentioned earlier, is the greatest single force for peace in the world. Let us endeavour to maintain and strengthen this commonwealth and commonwealth understanding. Let wisdom and understanding prevail. The dilemma or problem of today is freedom on an orderly basis.

I have mentioned just in passing the organization of the American states. I want to compliment the minister who in his wisdom decided to be cautious and to await events. A few short months have shown the wisdom of that policy. Cuba and the Dominican Republic are in turmoil. South America is feeling the winds of change. I was interested in hearing the minister point out the vast untouched resources in South America that are there awaiting capital and labour to work out the salvation of the people. That is all our people had when they came to this country three, four or five generations ago. They had nothing else but hard labour, diligence, saving and perseverance. This is what built up the high standard of living of this country and it can do it for other

countries if the governments of those countries make it possible for the people to do so. However, when the vast majority of those people are not able to enjoy a fair share of those resources through their labour, the stage is set for communism. Governments should be aware of this fact and so arrange their internal affairs that the people of those countries can participate in and enjoy some of the resources that are on their doorsteps.

Mr. Maiheson:

Mr. Chairman, at the commencement of his remarks I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs twice referred to the fact that we are meeting under circumstances of grave crisis. Crisis is a time of both calamity and opportunity. I think that this situation is very dangerous, and the situation with which we are faced in Berlin is precisely that. It is fraught with calamity and also with very great opportunity. Besides having courage, faith and sacrifice, these imperishable virtues, we need also imagination. We would hope that Canada may have a part in the creation of a solution of a situation that is dangerous and threatening to the world.

Dr. John MacMurray, speaking at Queen's University, said this:

Freedom is our nature. But our nature lies always beyond us and has to be intended and achieved. The obstacle lies in our fear and the craving for security which expresses it. So at every crisis we are faced with a free choice between freedom and security. If we choose security, and make that our aim, we lose freedom, and find in the end that security eludes us. If we choose freedom, then we are debarred from aiming at security; for that would mean imposing our bondage upon others. If we choose freedom we may find the security we do not seek,-

I think perhaps that is helpful to us at this time. Our only safe course is the course of freedom, freedom for those people whom we have pledged ourselves to support. We can consider no other course.

Some of the members, and I remember particularly the hon. member for Kootenay West, referred earlier today to some conversations he had had with constituents this summer. My own experience was somewhat similar to his. I found there were numbers of people, men I respected and curiously enough people who were Conservative in their political point of view, who took the view that Berlin was not worth the candle. Why should we be interested in a tiny place on the map 110 miles behind the iron curtain, north of Czechoslovakia and very close to the Polish border? I was interested to note that the people who expressed these views happened to be veterans either of world war I or world war II, and in most instances world war I. It occurred to me that perhaps hatreds

Supply-External Affairs of years gone by and the experiences gained in war had to some extent coloured and influenced thinking on this matter.

I have heard other suggestions. I heard a suggestion from the engineer of an important industry in the town in which I live. He suggested that a bold approach might be made through a nation such as ourselves to have Berlin established as a subsidiary headquarters of the United Nations. I heard a number of competitors in the closed Canadian chess competition this past week say no, Berlin is vitally important. We know middle Europe and we know the reaction of many people behind the iron curtain to any abandonment of the present position in Berlin. All these factors influence us at this time. We cannot fail to remember the various steps of appeasement that were taken prior to world war II aimed at security, which did not achieve security at all but brought us into total war. Surely, with these matters in mind we must take the position that there can be no other course for us but to support fully the position to defend Berlin against any attack.

On the other hand, let us be fair and reasonable and have perhaps a more open mind than has been displayed at all times by our great friends and relatives to the south of the line. I am reading now from an article by Dr. Louis Fischer entitled, "The Soviet-American Antagonism". This article was written in July, 1959.

In the last ten years a million east Germans have escaped into West Berlin. During 1958 alone 240,000 east Germans fled into West Berlin. We know the figures because when they come into West Berlin they report for relief and for transportation to west Germany, and they are counted. Of the 1958 fugitives, 200 were university professors; 3,100 were school teachers; and 1,200 were physicians, dentists and veterinarians. It is reported that east Germany has been recruiting Czech and Polish physicians for their hospitals. The exodus from east Germany via West Berlin is continuing at the rate of 20,000 a month.

This river of human talent is not only a serious drain on east Germany with its 17 million inhabitants, it is the worst kind of propaganda mark for communism everywhere in the world. It disrupts the stability of the east German regime. The freedom to escape is a freedom; and a totalitarian regime cannot tolerate such a freedom.

That is why Khrushchev wishes to close the escape hatch; to sew up this rent in the iron curtain.

This man who has been a recognized student of this situation, who lectured in New York, tells us that the situation from the Russian point of view has become exceedingly serious. We ought to recognize this. Doubtless in the past two years the situation has become even more aggravating from their standpoint.

A little farther on this article says another thing that we might consider of interest. Again, I point out that the author is speaking of the situation two years ago. He says:

Supply-External Affairs The west is not going to withdraw from West Berlin. Some are frightened by this prospect. But it is well not to panic. Stalin tried to take West Berlin in 1948; and when he was stopped by the western airlift, he did nothing. The Chinese communists have tried to take Quemoy and Matsu, to which I think they are entitled; but when they met opposition, they stopped. Khrushchev, in February 1958, created a Turkish-Syrian crisis in his experimental laboratory; but when nobody flinched, he did nothing. At the time of the Suez crisis, Moscow threatened to fire missiles at Great Britain. Go back to the time of that threat, the actual date and circumstances; I think it was a bluff. In any case, when the Americans actually landed in Lebanon, there was no Soviet countermove.

I say, Mr. Chairman, that if we stand firm it may be that there will not be a war. In any event, stand firm we must. On the other hand, we have to realize that this is a serious problem, a problem which has been irritating a great power, the Soviet union. It is a situation which surely has been irritating some Germans, while it has been a matter of great satisfaction to many others. Perhaps Canada is the kind of country that can give to the consideration of this subject some greater flexibility than is possible for a major power like the United States. This penetration, so close to Poland, runs north of Czechoslovakia and could be a tremendous opportunity. Surely, the only answer to getting out of this dreadful situation of cold war is a penetration of a character that is not going to disrupt and cause trouble but is eventually going to work out in some happier relation. It seems to me that our non-nuclear troops have to be there and take whatever position we have to take at this time in order to see it through. Then this thing, God willing, will work itself out.

In this situation we have to be capable of self criticism. I am not satisfied we always have been in the past few years. Governor Stevenson spoke of self criticism as being the most important matter for a democracy. He called it the secret weapon of democracy. There has not been enough self criticism of ourselves and when I say that I mean, of course, ourselves and our neighbours.

There are certain facts that we should remember here. In the long history of affairs between Russia and Canada, with the exception of the Bering sea dispute of a number of years ago I think there has not been anything in the nature of armed conflict between our countries. This nation of Russia came into being by revolution in 1917, the year of my birth. It is a very young nation. Hon. members will recall all the irritations they have suffered, including attack by western powers, non-recognition, etc. We of course do not agree with their philosophy and we must oppose them on many counts. However, I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs

this question. In these negotiations that take place, can we dare to forget the fact that Russia, in world war II sustained losses in casualties equal to the total population of Canada, that they fear Germany today and that there are realistic reasons why our attitude should be wise and considered? If a man as able as the one who spoke to me, and who is held in high regard in the Conservative party in my riding says to me, "No; these Germans are people who presented problems to the world in the past and we must watch them", then having him in mind, one who served in the Canadian forces in two wars, as did all the principal speakers in this debate, I would say that we must have some earnest sympathy with the Russian position and we must tread carefully and work with them to see whether there is not some possibility of reducing this situation to more favourable terms.

We must remember that this great nation we love-and I refer to the United States- was actually the author of the bomb, the nation that for its own purposes and in its own wisdom, dropped the bomb and destroyed two great Japanese cities. This is the nation which sent the U-2 flights over Russia not so very long ago and which under a dedicated and idealistic young president invaded Cuba. We are their best friends, and we are their best friends if we are honest friends and if we are prepared to assume slightly independent views.

It seems to me passing strange that we have an administration that was swept into power in this country very substantially through taking the position that there were certain respects in which Canada was adversely affected by the United States in economics and business, but when it comes to this important area of international affairs, they take the view "Wherever you go, we will go too and we will do exactly what you do". We are not serving the best interests of our best friends the Americans by taking a subservient role of such a character. I think this is a moment demanding truth. I think that rudeness between Canada and Russia, whether by speeches in the United Nations or anywhere else, does not serve any useful purpose at all. I think we must pause and consider that with all its recent scientific and technical achievement Russia has not received one kind word of congratulation or praise from our side. There has not been one case that I know of in Canada where any courtesy or kindness has been shown to Russia or any Russian dignitary. We almost look the other way if a Soviet personage passes through our country. We recognize that these are people that may destroy us. But the only way in which to defeat this dereadful situation that

is building up, with strontium 90, this radiation hazard that may affect future generations even if war does not come, is by penetration, by some measure of understanding, by being as good neighbours as possible. We have heard so many speeches delivered in Canada that they have almost become cliches about our role as the golden link between Britain and the United States and at other times between the United Kingdom and France. This has been the role that we like to talk about as being the destiny of Canada. Is it not possible that our great destiny may be to become a hinge between the neighbour to the north and the neighbour to the south. I think this is not impossible if we think widely and broadly in terms of the future. I do not like to hear remarks passed critically, as they have been at various times-I am not referring to tonight but at other times-of Prime Minister Nehru. I would feel that in the field of international relations when Canada pulls far away from India we are going to be in trouble. I agree with the proposition that perhaps there cannot be serious interference by one commonwealth state in the affairs of another.

There was reference tonight to Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus. I remember a conversation I had some years ago with the then secretary of state. At that time I was quite exercised about the Cyprus dispute and was asking questions of this man of importance in world affairs. I asked him about Cyprus and why we did not take a stronger position with respect to Cyprus. I well recall the answer he gave me at that time. He said, "Yes I can understand your feeling about Makarios but I believe the only way you can win these people is by understanding them, by giving a bit. By yielding here and there. If Britain yields at the right time with regard to Makarios I think that one day Cyprus will be part of the commonwealth. Going back to what was said by the hon. member who preceded me, I think the fact is that at the sad moment when South Africa was read out of the commonwealth the new nation of Cyprus under Makarios came back in. With goodwill, understanding and patience all things are possible. We must be flexible. We must realize that hatred of other people is not going to add anything at all. There is another point I wish to make. A few years ago in Kingston there was an opportunity to hear a man by the name of Rudolph Pechel, a distinguished editor and publisher in Germany. He was one of the freedom fighters. He pointed out that it was extremely difficult for the Germans to get any kind of support in resistance to the Nazi tyranny from any source at all. He said that people did not want to believe that there was a resistance movement in Germany. He concluded his remarks

Supply-External Affairs in the Charles Dunning trust lectures, by saying that we should keep this matter in mind when we consider the youth of eastern Europe. Surely this is one of the factors why Berlin is significant, because of our link with these people who need hope. May I briefly refer to something that has been said by our good friend Alastair Buchan. He speaks with authority of this critical moment when military instruments, while still a reality of political conflict, have taken on a life of their own and have become a separate source of tension and danger. This, of course, is well handled by the article of Kenneth McNaughton in "Canada Must Get Out of the Arms Race". We earnestly congratulate and support our distinguished Secretary of State for External Affairs for his leadership and tenacity and his assurance that we will continue in this position. I hope our resistance to atomic weapons becomes inflexible. Surely the only way in which to resist this nuclear force is with moral force and with gallant troops who are prepared to take their stand with conventional weapons alone and to meet the challenge wherever it comes as free men, symbols of a large United Nations family. May I conclude with these words of Alastair Buchan, the distinguished son of a beloved governor general of Canada. He said this:

. -we are on the edge of a fundamental change in the world balance of power as it has existed in the last 15 years, and that the axis of world tension is about to shift from "East-West" to "South-East-North-West," or even to "North-South". If so, there is no time to be lost, given the inevitable time lag in the adjustment of governments and policies to reality, in seeking to identify the areas of common interest with the Soviet union. It would be one of the major tragedies of world history if two powers the size of Russia and the United States were to remain locked in a position of implacable hostility because of their inability to overcome the barriers raised by competing military technologies after the political basis of that hostility had been transmuted into something approaching a common cause against new dangers.

Surely our only possibility of hope in Canada is that we will come through this crisis; that men will experiment with their new toys and will mature and learn to love one another. Our position must be one of dignity, courage, flexibility and understanding. It should not be that of the honest broker, because we are not that important. Perhaps one course in external affairs would be to take a man like "Rocket" Richard and give him a few thousand dollars to take his friends on a tour of Russia.

After all Russia, this common enemy, is the country we admired a few years ago. It is the country of Tolstoi, Chekhov, Dostoyevsky, the country of music and art. We must remember that nothing is impossible. Just 21 years ago we had another enemy,

8098 HOUSE OF

Supply-External Affairs and before that again we have had other enemies. We now face a crisis, a calamity and an opportunity. We may emerge, with our respected Secretary of State for External Affairs playing a creative part in the solution of the horrible and fearful problem which faces the world today.

(Translation):

Mr. Pigeon:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to talk about a trip I made last year. As a member of a Canadian delegation, I went to Tokyo for the 49th conference of the international interparliamentary union.

After the conference, my wife and I, accompanied by the hon. Senator and Mrs. Dessureault, went to Taipeh for a visit to Formosa. It was the first time that a Canadian member of parliament visited Formosa.

We were given a hearty welcome. During the few days we stayed in Formosa, we were able to visit this beautiful island. We found that a total and complete freedom prevails there, unlike the situation in red China where persecution exists and where many missionaries, both Catholic and Protestant, as well as from other denominations, have given their lives, having been killed, shot or imprisoned.

In Formosa, we met Generalissimo and Madame Chiang Kai-shek. We were greatly impressed by everything we saw but what struck me most during that trip in the Orient were the land reforms which were instituted both in Japan and in Formosa without any persecution or bloodshed. Those land reforms bear a marked contrast with the ones which were carried out in red China where communes were organized by means of persecution.

Mr. Chairman, I am speaking in my own name and my observations are in no way binding upon the government, but I must admit that I was surprised to notice that Canada has no embassy in Formosa while free China has had an embassy here, in Ottawa, for many years.

There is some talk these days about Canada's recognition of red China. Some members have mentioned it. As for myself-this, again, merely reflects my own opinion-I would not be in favour of Canadian recognition of communist China, as we believe in opposite principles. We are associated with friendly countries, we fight for peace and freedom. That is why I feel we would be discouraging other nations, especially those of southeast Asia, if this country were to recognize red China.

I was quite surprised to see those 12 million Formosans make every sacrifice and

labour for peace in order to reconquer their mother country at present under the yoke of a dictatorial government.

I think it would be unfortunate if this country should recognize communist China. We must prefer the Washington leadership to that of Havana. Besides, if we recognized red China, our relations with the United States would become rather shaky.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to take a few minutes to state some of my reasons for opposing the recognition of red China and its admission to the United Nations.

1. There is not one provision of the United Nations charter that has not been violated by red China.

2. That country has not yet made peace in Korea with the United Nations forces. It is impossible for the United Nations to accept a government with which, under international law, it is still at war.

3. Red China is supporting in all southeast Asia the case of North Viet Nam. Attacks on Viet Nam were made by that country as well as raids in India beyond its border.

4. Red China is charged before the United Nations with committing genocide in Tibet.

I think it is impossible to accept within an international organization dedicated to the promotion of peace among nations by means of negotiations and not war, a country whose chief states that the only power is the power of the gun.

Because of historical circumstances, the Russian empire with its Soviet colonies is a member of the United Nations and already their foundations are being shaken by propositions which would bind that organization hand and foot.

When Mr. Boland, chairman of the general assembly, broke his hammer calling him to order, Mr. Khrushchev stated himself that it was a symbol of the weathering of the United Nations.

If with the presence of the U.S.S.R. at the United Nations deliberations are already pointless, it is not desirable to admit a country like red China. If red China were admitted to the United Nations, I believe it would mean the end of that organization. I am in favour of an international organization that renders tremendous service to all nations, especially through its subsidiary organizations such as UNESCO, FAO and WHO.

I cannot see how we can admit red China to the United Nations, for it would be a terrific blow to free China, which has always respected the charter of the United Nations and which is constantly threatened by red

China. By admitting communist China, the U.N.O. would bring about its own destruction. It would mean the prelude to a first class funeral for the United Nations organization which would have been the first to depart from the spirit as well as the letter of its charter.

Hon. Senator Dessureault and myself have immensely enjoyed our visit to Japan and free China. We were in a position to realize the importance of Formosa to the countries of southeast Asia. In my opinion, the defence of Formosa is not only vital to the survival of free peoples, but also necessary to check communism in southeast Asia. If, by any chance, Formosa were not supported, I think we would lose much and that all countries in southeast Asia would fall prey to communism.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make those few personal remarks as a token of gratitude to the government of free China that welcomed us so kindly.

(Text):

Miss LaMarsh:

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention originally to intervene in a debate of such importance and I do so with considerable temerity. I do so not as a statesman, not as one who is learned in the field of foreign policy but as an individual Canadian who has gained most of her information through the public press, through pronouncements made by this administration and by those of other countries and from news stories. In the intervening period of adjournment I attempted to ascertain from the people with whom I came in contact both in my riding and elsewhere the feeling of the Canadian people with respect to the crisis in Berlin, which was really little more than a small cloud on our horizon when we left this green chamber in July and which has grown horrifyingly to such proportions and to such an evil colour.

I cannot say that during the weeks of adjournment I have been able to find unanimity even among my own people, much less among the many other people throughout the country to whom I have spoken. Therefore I do not attempt to speak for all Canadians, for all of the people of my riding or indeed, Mr. Chairman, even for a majority of them.

There is no question that this debate into which we are launched on the first day of our return has within it the seeds of the most critical discussion that has taken place not only during this session but in this parliament and perhaps in any other parliament. Rather than the debate ending with too few people intervening, I would hope that most members of the house would attempt to search their

Supply-External Affairs consciences and to give the government what it deserves, their best view with respect to their opinions and the people's opinions. I do not approach this matter in a partisan way. Survival or failure to survive is not a question of party politics. Indeed, in many ways it is not even a matter of nationalism or internationalism. Perhaps those who serve in this parliament and in other parliaments or congresses of the world have now to deal with the most important problem of all.

May I humbly associate myself with the remarks of many of those who have already spoken and particularly with those of the hon. member for Leeds. For us in Canada who have never felt bombs rain on our heads, who have never seen children without heads or arms lying in the streets, who have never seen our public monuments and our homes lying in rubble around us, for us in Canada, some of whom have worn a uniform but the majority of whom have learned about these things through news reels, films and from the press, it is easy to be rigid. It is easy for us to say that some place we will draw the line and stand and fight. I would think that many Canadians of my generation who once wore their country's uniform are prepared once again as Canadians, regardless of ethnic background, regardless of the part of the country from which they stem, to don the uniform of the Queen if their country calls them; but with what cold horror they would do so. I do not think they would do so this time with the feeling that there would be something of peace that could be won.

I recall when the first atomic bombs appeared on the scenes toward the end of the last war and first came into our common lexicon. Many people ignored them and said that in the last war the horror of gas was not used and mankind would never stoop to use atomic warfare. Yet here we are today four years from the time when we began to see what we could do with nuclear power for peaceful uses, four years this month from the time when the U.S.S.R. put its first sputnik into space. We have come the full cycle in a few short years in this country and the world, to the point where what we are actually discussing is whether those who sit in this chamber and those they represent will be here a year from now.

There are those who say with respect to the question of survival that there will always be some who will survive and they can start again. The essence of this debate with respect to Berlin must come down to this. Do we risk our future, the future of everyone in the world, the uncommitted nations, the committed nations, those millions of people in the world who do not even know that there is a Berlin much less that

8100 HOUSE OF

Supply-External Affairs there is a crisis over it? Must we decide now which it will be? In my very humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, I think not.

This afternoon the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a brief statement and I must confess that to begin with it was disquieting to me, because the things for which he said Canada stood were things with which I think there would be no quarrel. He said that Canada stood for peace, for doing away with nuclear weapons, for banning tests, for supporting the United Nations and for supporting our treaties, including NATO. I would think that no country and no individual in a country could in fact disagree with those statements. So I was dissatisfied, as I think many in the country might be dissatisfied, to think that here was no leadership, here was no banner unfurled, here was nothing decisive.

In the past few weeks Canadians have become more and more apprehensive. What will be done? Most of us who are in parliament have had telephone calls and letters and are approached on the streets. Will there be war? What is it all about? How did it come to pass? Where are we going? There is an old Scottish air, "I know where I am going". I think most individuals like to feel that they know where they are going and all individuals like to feel that their government knows where it is going and where it is leading its people.

So at first blush at least I think the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs today may have been received coolly and with disappointment in the country. But even in the few short hours since then it may have been borne in upon Canadians, and will be if all members participate in this debate, that it is not so simple to say, "Here is what we stand for; this we negotiate and this we will not."

Earlier today the hon. member for Essex East did say that in our view some things with respect to Berlin are not negotiable, and when I say "our view" I mean a Canadian view and perhaps a western view. We will never be false to ourselves or other free men around the world. I do not think anyone now in Canada would choose that its leaders should be false to that principle. It is not enough to go into a grocery store and to have someone who is worried about the future of mankind say, "I will not defend that German city, I will not defend Germany, I fought once to destroy Germany". There are echoes in this country from people who said, "I will not fight to defend Britain." It may be that another time we will have those who will say, "I will not fight to defend France, I will not fight to defend the United States."

Luckily or not, we do not have to answer that question any more because there is no longer any question of fighting to defend Germans, or a tiny city or even part of a city that happens to lie inside East Germany. What we are asked to stand up and be counted for is where we stand in the matter of freedom.

Freedom is a word that is much maligned. It perhaps means different things in the mouths of various men and women. Mr. Khrushchev in his speeches says that he stands for peace and freedom, and I suppose he does.

The greatest and most critical danger that we now face is something which the orientals call a possibility of loss of face. It is possible that the two protagonists, the United States and Russia, will adopt a rigidity of position in which one or the other must, willy-nilly, cause a war. It does not matter whether the war commences with nuclear weapons or whether it arises from someone on one side of the border using a hose and someone on the other side using a gas or smoke bomb. I think everyone is conscious of the fact that it does not matter how the conflict commences. The United States once felt that it was better to bring an end to the holocaust of world war II by using a nuclear weapon and it appears likely that in the event of another conflict one of the two parties would feel justified in doing the same thing. Whether war begins with sticks and stones or even with mere insults it will lead inevitably to a war that will destroy all humankind. We must not let this happen.

Prime Minister Nehru speaking at a recent meeting referred to the uncommitted nations. He said only what all men know, that Canada is kidding itself if it says it can alter present circumstances, if it takes the position that it can push the parties apart and make them decide the way it wishes them to. Mr. Nehru cannot do it on behalf of India nor can our Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of Canada.

Perhaps the greatest thing we can do is this. We can search our consciences to determine where we stand and, knowing this, be firm. Then as a nation, through our administration and its Secretary of State for External Affairs, we must do everything and anything to keep open the door to negotiations. It may be that we ourselves cannot effectively contribute to negotiations. It may be that we ourselves cannot offer guidance that will lead to the successful settlement of the problems under negotiation. Perhaps at this stage our only position is to keep fluid the situation, keep open the door, keep the parties meeting at all costs.

We know that at one time Japan and the United States were meeting, yet war broke out. It appears from the events of the past week which saw the resumption by the U.S.S.R. of nuclear testing that the moral indignation of the world may not really be enough to forestall the end for all of us, but while the two nations are negotiating the chances are relatively slender that the end will come. Therefore, perhaps the policy enunciated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon was the wisest kind of policy in that the hon. gentleman did not take a rigid position except in terms of that for which Canada stands. He did not say what Canada is against. The minister was careful, discrete and cautious. Mr. Chairman, I am not careful, discrete and cautious. I am a different type of person. It was for this reason that I chose to listen to the debate this afternoon and did not intervene.

I have listened to and spoken with the people of Canada whose understanding of the facts confronting us is perhaps imperfect but whose emotion and feelings will have to lead them to follow their leaders in this administration or another or hold back. The people with whom I have spoken feel that perhaps the best Canada can do is not to permit the boat to be rocked, not to permit the door to be closed.

Perhaps we thought in Canada a few years ago that, with our increased status in the past 20 years or so as a large industrial nation, one recognized internationally, we enjoyed and could maintain a position in which everyone would listen to us. We have told ourselves over and over again that this was the case. Our leaders in the universities, in politics and in other fields have assured us that we are not a colonial power and never were and therefore we are the rightful people to lead the uncommitted and non-colonial free nations.

I heard one hon. gentleman refer this evening to Canada's destiny. He spoke of manifold destiny and of viewing the future with alarm. These are imported terms and really mean nothing. No nation has a destiny that is preordained. The nation has what the guts and blood of its people cause it to have. At every course there is a turning for nations as there is for individuals. Sometimes, as a great poet once said, they also serve who stand and wait. Perhaps what is necessary for Canada now, Mr. Chairman, is to stand waiting as a nation holding open the door. Perhaps at this time we should not call for a definite flaming policy to follow. Per-

Business of the House haps part of our maturity lies in the recognition that we are largely a Christian nation which believes it has right on its side and in not seeking to impose our will on others. Perhaps we should only ask those we have befriended in the past in war and peace and those we are prepared to befriend in future, whether they lie to the north, south, east or west, to join hands and continue talking in an effort to seek constructive settlement.

It may be that the people of Canada will find their destiny, in this hour at least, not in shooting or in standing toe to the line and daring others to cross it, or in rattling sabres, or in increasing military might, or in deciding to prepare ourselves for a great war, or in hiding our people in holes in the ground, or in deciding to use a bomb, but in deciding that the whole moral and spiritual force of this country must be brought to bear in an effort to keep open all avenues of negotiation. Perhaps all we can do is to assist in having the protagonists in this gigantic struggle continue negotiations. We must do all that we can to prevent the increase of tension that can lead to inevitable destruction.

The thoughts I have endeavoured to express may be viewed by some as muddled thinking. There are those who call on the government to give us not just a policy but a detailed plan of action involving means by which we can impose our policy on the world. There are others who take the position of saying, let us become neutral; let the big boys decide this one; we will survive or perish with them. Let us be this link of which the hon. member for Leeds spoke, this linchpin, I think Mackenzie King called it, at a time when Britain and the United States were engaged in an equally critical struggle. Let us be the linchpin between the two forces and let us pray God, Mr. Chairman, that nothing breaks asunder that linchpin.

Mr. Macquarrie:

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you will call it 10.30 o'clock?

Agreed.

Progress reported.

Mr. Marlin (Essex East):

What is the business for tomorrow?

Mr. Churchill:

We will continue tomorrow with the discussion of the estimates of external affairs.

At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Questions