May 4, 1951

LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I do not want to interrupt

my hon. friend's speech, but I can clear up that point right now. The proposal which he has read from the newspaper is one which the Canadian delegation to the United Nations has supported. That proposal does not go as far as the steps we have already taken in the control of strategic goods going from Canada to communist China.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

That may be, but there have

been goods going to China from other United Nations, as witness the statement made today in the British house.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

I am talking for Canada.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

Canada should be advocating

an embargo against communist China. I do not see any reason why there should not *also be a naval blockade. It is all very well to be idealistic and theoretical, but we must remember that tonight in Korea young Canadians are being killed by Chinese. The Chinese have been killing them for some weeks and with the next few days hundreds more may be killed.

Just about thirteen or fourteen years ago we saw this same policy being carried out in Vancouver. Under the bridge over which I travelled each day by street car to go to work I could see the Canadian destroyer Vancouver, which I believe was on loan from Great Britain, being broken up into scrap which was to be sent to Japan to make steel. We protested in this house about scrap metal being sent to Japan, and the longshoremen on the coast refused to load those ships. The answer we got in parliament was, "Oh, well, if we try to stop that we will make Japan angry, and she is apt to fight." Now we are getting exactly the same argument from the government, that we cannot do this or we cannot do that, because if we do the Chinese communists may get angry.

If the Chinese communists do not get angry then the Soviets might get angry and we might get into a war. Yet all the time the Chinese are killing our men just as fast and in just as large numbers as they are able to. This sort of thing is ridiculous. The Canadian government should make up its mind that Canada is in a United Nations war which has got to be won, and that our one objective should be to win that war.

The minister also said this afternoon that he was against the bombing of Manchurian bases unless the Chinese air force began to get nasty and to do too much fighting over Korea. He said that perhaps it would then be all right for General Ridgway to send his planes to bomb the Manchurian bases. Surely when you are in a war your objective is to win it just as quickly as possible. I do not think it has -been fair throughout for the politicians at Lake Success to put all these wraps on the generals who have been trying to win the war. Not only are there air bases in Manchuria from which planes can come but there are also military bases. From these military bases the communists have been -coming in their hundreds of thousands. They are being equipped and supplied from these military bases. I suggest that we should not tie General Ridgway's hands in dealing with these bases. If it is necessary for him to bomb them in order to win the war, then let him bomb them.

Then there is another thing. Why should Chinese nationalist troops not be used in Korea? Why must Canadian and American troops, and troops of other members of the United Nations, do all the fighting and Chinese nationalist troops not be used? Nationalist China is a member of the United Nations. She holds one of the permanent seats on the security council. According to the little -booklet of documents on the Korean crisis tabled earlier in the session, nationalist China offered on July 3, a little over a week after aggression started in Korea, three infantry divisions and twenty C-47's. The offer was turned down.

Last Friday or Saturday General Mac-Arthur in his statement to the United States committee told them that last November, when his troops had their backs to the wall and when battle conditions were so tragic, he asked permission to use 30,000 or more Chinese nationalists troops to help stem the red Chinese onslaught, and that that request was refused because, for one reason at least, some of the other nations, which presumably included Canada for the commonwealth countries were mentioned, objected to it. The result was that the United States did not feel she could use those troops. No one is 80709-178

External Affairs

advocating sending United Nations troops to the mainland of China. General MacArthur has been very careful to say that he had not and would not advocate that, but surely those troops could have been used in Korea to help repel the aggressors.

We talk about the Americans going to extremes but we are apt to do the same thing ourselves. Look at the attitude we adopt towards the two groups of Chinese. A few years ago Madame Chiang Kai-shek spoke to us in this chamber. Members who were here at the time will recall how we thought she was perfect. We could not do enough for China. We were full of sympathy for the Chinese nationalists; I have never seen any stronger reaction than there was right in this chamber at that time. Today the attitude, as expressed by -both C.C.F. speakers, is that nothing could be worse than the nationalist Chinese. Apparently they are just the last people on earth that we should think of helping.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

That is the attitude, and on

the other hand the communist Chinese seem to be all right. They should be offered peace. We should go out of our way to try to negotiate with them. Yet just about a week ago we read in the press of the kangaroo trials in Canton broadcast over the radio to Hong Kong; people were being tried by the citizens court and rushed off to be shot. People are being murdered probably by the hundreds of thousands by these same Chinese communists. Let us not lose our sense of proportion. I cannot see why nationalist Chinese troops are not good enough to fight against communist Chinese troops if that can be arranged, and apparently it can.

There is one other step that Canada should take to help win the war in Korea. I believe that Canada should demand in the United Nations that all members of that organization who were in favour of fighting aggression in Korea get in and do some fighting. Why should there only be fourteen countries doing any fighting? If there are many cases of that kind the United Nations cannot survive. This is a joint effort. We are in a United Nations war, and every member of the United Nations which voted for the war should be supplying troops. I hope that the Canadian representatives will have the courage to take that stand in the debates in the United Nations.

A lingering war such as is going on in Korea at the present time can only bring damage. What is taking place there now is what is going on in Indo-China and Malaya

External Affairs

only on a much larger scale. The Chinese communists are not likely to stop fighting and apologize for what they have done. They have to be defeated, and Canada and the other members of the United Nations might just as well face that fact. Remember that in Asia the stakes are high. Several hundred million people of Asia are standing on the sidelines watching to see which way this fight is going to go. The situation is quite different from that in Europe, where practically every nation is committed. In Asia there are several hundred million people just watching to see which side wins.

The United Nations must decide whether or not it wants the Korean war won. I believe that decision must be made by the United Nations at this time. I do not believe that the attitude of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon was very helpful. If his attitude is general among the statesmen representing all the nations there is little hope of the United Nations winning the war in Korea. There must be less emphasis put on trying to keep from offending the communists and far more put on victory. The emphasis should be laid on victory and not on appeasing these aggressors.

You see, the minister's stand today in effect meant this: that if the Chinese communists go back above the 38th parallel and then say they are not going to fight any more, that they are sorry they killed so many Americans, Canadians and others, then Canada would be in favour of negotiating over Formosa; Canada would be inclined to give them Formosa; and Canada would be willing to discuss allowing communist China to become a member of the United Nations and take the permanent seat on the security council. I am afraid there is too much hom-burg hat direction in the fighting of the war in Korea. I think we would get ahead a great deal faster and get the war over a great deal sooner if we let the generals do the managing.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lester Bowles Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Pearson:

Brass hats, not black hats.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

For example, when the minister was speaking today about the folly of an economic blockade of the China coast, I thought he was stepping into the military sphere, and that he would have done far better to confine himself to diplomacy. This affair has now reached the stage where the lives of young Canadians are at stake; and this war must be won. If the war is not won, if the aggressors are not defeated, in my judgment those lives will have been given in vain.

So much for Korea. As I have pointed out, it is a United Nations show, the only one; and it is the only one we are likely to have for a long time. We were only able to get into it by reason of the fact that the Soviet was sulking and not attending meetings of the security council at the time the aggression arose. She is now back in the council, and would veto any action should a similar situation arise in future.

Canada's foreign policy has been defined from time to time by the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) as being primarily to support the United Nations; and we all agree with that as a first policy. The second policy has been announced as reliance upon regional arrangements, of which the North Atlantic treaty organization is an example. Of course the troops who go to Europe will not go as United Nations troops, as was the case with those who went to Korea. Those going to Europe will go as troops of the North Atlantic treaty organization. That treaty seems to be working out fairly well, and I think everyone in this house supports the actions that have been taken under it. Mention was made of the treaty in the report of the external affairs committee which sat last session, where you will find this reference:

Your committee approves of the action taken by Canada under the provisions of the North Atlantic treaty in the interests of preserving world peace and security.

Then the committee went on to add:

Your' committee recommends that increasing attention be given to the Asiatic zone.

You see, Mr. Speaker, in the Pacific area there is no such regional arrangement.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

David Arnold Croll

Liberal

Mr. Croll:

Does the hon. gentleman know that Australia and New Zealand have entered into a regional arrangement with the United States without regard to the rest of the commonwealth, and without discussions with Great Britain?

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

I am coming to that in a moment. As a matter of fact that arrangement has not been completed.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

David Arnold Croll

Liberal

Mr. Croll:

The British papers say it has. Mr. Morrison said so in his speech.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Howard Charles Green

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Green:

I believe there is no such regional arrangement in the Pacific completed as yet. I suggest that Canada's policy for the Pacific area should be to be ready to combine with the other nations to provide security in that area, and to encourage economic collaboration. Of course under the North Atlantic treaty provision was made for economic collaboration as well as for security

measures, and the same thing would be true of a treaty for the Pacific. The United States, Australia and New Zealand are making a start. For her own safety Canada should join with those nations. Personally I cannot understand why Canada has not joined with the United States, Australia and New Zealand to set up a regional pact in the Pacific. I believe we will be losing a great opportunity not only for the present but for all time if we do not take steps to join such an organization. Perhaps the United Kingdom and France could also be members. I have here a press dispatch of April 25 headed "Britain now hopeful of being included in Pacific pact". Apparently the British feel they were left out. The dispatch is from London, and reads:

The Labour government, under fire in the House of Commons for failing to get in on the proposed Pacific pact between the United States, Australia and New Zealand, hopes to be included when wider security arrangements for the area are made, a spokesman said.

I see no reason why the Philippines should not be a member, and the other Pacific nations as they become stable once more. So for the Pacific area I urge upon the minister once more that Canada should promote the establishment of a Pacific defence pact.

Then I believe we should insist that Formosa must not be turned over to the Chinese communists. It is vital to Canadians on the west coast as a defence measure that Formosa should not be in the hands of our enemies. Those who heard General MacArthur speak a few days ago will remember how he pointed out that before the last war the western strategic frontier of the United States was on the littoral line of the American continent, with what he described as an exposed island salient running out to Hawaii, Midway and Guam to the Philippines. He went on to say that this salient proved to be a great menace in time of war, that the Japanese had attacked by coming along the salient. He then explained that as a result of the victory in the Pacific a strategic frontier had now been established along the line of islands just off the Asiatic coast including Japan, Formosa and the Philippines. He pointed out very clearly that this line was not for offensive action but for defending this North American continent, and that if any part of that line were to go-if for example Formosa were to be given over to an enemy-then the whole line could be broken down from Formosa. Japan could 80700-1781

External Affairs

not be held, probably the Philippines could not be held; and he concluded with these words:

Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan, and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

He did not mention British Columbia, but the frontier of Canada in the Pacific area would then be forced back to the coast of British Columbia. I believe that those Canadians who live on the Pacific slope are entitled to ask of this government that Canada take the stand that Formosa must not be turned over to the Chinese communists. Let us maintain our line of defence on the far side of the Pacific, and not on our own front doorstep.

Thirdly, in the Pacific, I agree that Canada should give openhearted support to such plans as the Colombo plan, or any plan under the United Nations that will help the underdeveloped countries of Asia. I believe that a worth-while step has already been taken in that direction, and that Canada has in those parts of Asia a great store of potential good will and great possibilities for trade in the future. Certainly, so far as I am concerned, I heartily endorse everything that can be done to help those countries of southeast Asia.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words on the British commonwealth. I suggest that Canadians, in these days of a two-power world, a world with the United States on one side and Russia on the other and with everyone caught in between, are getting a clearer realization of the value of the commonwealth. Thoughtful Canadians are wishing the commonwealth stood today, as it did in the recent war, as a third great world power. The value of the commonwealth in the world today is tremendous for many reasons, some of which are that the commonwealth must, of necessity, be for peace. It is so scattered about the world that it must stand for peace. Then, the component parts have shown that they can work together as equals in a manner that has never been accomplished by free nations in the world before. It links countries of Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa and North America; links the east and the west, the north and the south, and links diverse races. It has had great experience and has great patience in world affairs. These are all facts which today give the British commonwealth great value in the world.

Canada, because of her geographic position, because of her friendliness with all the members of the commonwealth, her understanding of the United States and her increasing

External Affairs

strength, occupies a position of great responsibility and great opportunity among the nations of the commonwealth. I hope that the policy of this government, and the policy of Canada for all time, will be to maintain and strengthen the British commonwealth.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

James MacKerras Macdonnell

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. M. Macdonnell (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, when one gets towards the latter hours of a debate like this and undertakes to detain the house further, one is reminded of something I once quoted in this house, that devastating comment which Churchill once made about a speech, and one fears one may fall into the criticism he made. He said of a speech that parts of it were true and parts of it were trite; the parts that were true were trite, and the parts that were not trite were not true. I hope I shall not fall wholly into this criticism, but if I do at any rate it will probably be brief. I do not propose to comment at length, or indeed at all, on the minister's policy in Korea. My colleague the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and more lately the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Green) have spoken on that.

What I want to ask the house is, in the light of these serious things which we have been hearing today, in the light of the discussion which we are assured, and which we indeed believe, affects our very survival as a nation, how many people in this country by .their day to day actions show that they have the slightest realization of this? I would think that a very, very small fraction of the people of Canada would fall into this category. The only ones I can think of who by their day to day 'life show they have the slightest personal realization of it would be the relatives of those who are already in the fighting line, and those whose work has been dislocated by the changeover from peace to defence activities. I doubt very much if anyone sitting in the gallery of this house today would have got the slightest feeling that there was any sense of urgency. The last thing in the world he would have thought was that we were here representing a nation of people who were troubled about their very survival. I am not foolish enough to suggest that we should get excited and look as if the end of the world were coming. I do suggest that it is a matter for very serious questioning as to why these facts are facts, if I am right in stating them as I do. Why is it?

I suppose that I would say, first of all, there has been no real sense of urgency. I will not say it has never been indicated by the government, because I have no doubt the words have been used. There has been, however, no real putting of it across. When

the labour estimates were being considered a day or two ago there was a reference to an advisory committee which was appointed with a great flourish of trumpets last February, I believe, after an address by a leading industrialist which was supposed to shake us all up and nearly make us all over again. As I understand it, that committee had an inaugural meeting, and I presume a dinner or something of the kind. Then they separated to their various places of abode, and so far as I know they have never been back. They are not going to come back, either, for some little time. There is no chance of finding any sense of urgency there.

Then, there is the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) made or which was attributed to him-I do not want to be unfair about it-the fifty to one shot. All I want to say about that is that it did its damage. Whether or not he said it or whether he should have said it, I am not going to comment upon that, but so far as I know there has never been any effective action to counteract it. I gather that people who have the responsibility of office, and the infallibility which comes from that, find it impossible to ever say directly they are wrong. Sometimes, by indirection, we feel that they have been wrong; sometimes we think it is possible they may even know themselves they have been wrong, but we know they will never say they have been wrong. However, there are ways, indirect ways, of countering that unfortunate statement, but they have never been attempted. I suggest very earnestly that the feeling still remains that all this talk about danger and the need for a defence program-all it has meant has been full employment and the high cost of living. Of course, we shall hear more about that, but it has not been with us long enough to really sear people's souls as it will later.

I want to turn to another aspect of this important situation. I suppose everyone will agree that, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves today, the relationship between ourselves and the United States is a matter of overwhelming importance. The other day I was speaking with a group of school boys, and I wanted to see how this thing appealed to them. They were boys who, I imagine, in the United States would have been subject to conscription, so I Was interested in ascertaining whether it ever occurred to them to wonder why we were so free from anything of that kind; why they were not only free from conscription but they were even free from any sense of duty towards their country. I asked them about it, and so far as I could discover their feeling was: after all

this is a United States affair and we are out of it, and that is lucky, and we can have things that they cannot have in the United States; and they just let it go at that. In these circumstances I propose to refer to what has already been referred to, namely, the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) on April 10. It seems to me so out of line with the other things that he has said, nevertheless I do not think it can be set aside and regarded just as a little jeu d'esprit which perhaps might better not have taken place, but which is over and done. It raised of course in my mind the question of the multiplicity of speeches which are being made on festive occasions by ministers in these times; and the Secretary of State for External Affairs I think probably is more subject to that kind of thing, because after all he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have no doubt he gets many requests of this kind. It would be a very bold person indeed who would say that none of these should be accepted. After all, it is a recognized thing on the 9th of November, if I have the date right, usually to have a statement on external affairs made in Britain. I am not sure whether it is the prime minister or the minister for foreign affairs who makes the statement. But there is always a certain danger in these speeches to outside audiences. There is a certain desire to be entertaining and fresh, and to say something exciting to make them feel they have got on the inside; and of course if the things said are things which have not been said anywhere else it is even more diverting to them. Whereas when speeches are made in this house you have the chilly glare of members, if they happen to be in the house listening to you, you have the chilly fact of looking at them, and you are much more likely, I think, to weigh your words.

Perhaps we might say that that is the reason that the minister stepped aside a little on that day. At any rate, it seems to me unfortunate, and it seems to some other people unfortunate, because I think he has left rather widespread the impression that we in Canada have in fact a lot of grievances and that we really feel very edgy towards the United States. Speaking for myself, I have no such feeling, but a very contrary feeling. As a matter of fact I am going to quote from the minister, things which show that he also usually has a very contrary feeling, and that is what makes me more than ever surprised, how we ran into all this, how he said all these things on that particular day.

External Affairs

But first of all, I wish to read just a short passage from the Hamilton Spectator, a fairly independent paper of course. It says:

It is regrettable that Mr. Pearson (or some behind-the-scenes prompters) should have directed a taunting lecture to a people who are now facing an intense domestic storm while they fight a disturbingly difficult war ordered by the United Nations. It does nothing for unity.

Then I propose to quote just a short extract from the Montreal Gazette of April 12, which expresses exactly my own feeling: I do not think there is any feeling throughout Canada of grievance, or that we have been pushed around. The article is entitled: "Are they pushing you around?" And it begins:

Most ordinary Canadians, it would seem, don't harbour any sense of smoldering grievance against the United States. They are more likely to thank God that we are as near as we are, and as inwardly close as we are. For this reason anyone who attempts, in however subtle a manner, to cultivate a sense of grievance where none really exists is doing both nations a very poor service.

For some time certain Canadians have been writing articles (many of them in American magazines) in which they have pointed out that Canadians are pretty well fed up with the treatment the United States is giving them. They are sending public memos to Uncle Sam to tell him so.

Later the article says:

Possibly those who move at diplomatic levels have special occasion to feel slights and pricks that fortunately do not torment those who lead a more normal Canadian life. This may explain why many Canadians may not quite understand the sources of Mr. Pearson's evident annoyance.

I want now to quote from the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself; I want to quote first of all what he said in his speech on April 27, and which indicates what I would imagine to be the minister's normal feeling toward the United States, and certainly what I would hope is his normal feeling. Speaking of the United States, he said:

We in Canada know this country and its people well. We know them as good neighbours who respect the rights of others, who don't ask for or get automatic support from smaller countries through pressure or threats or promises. We know that they accept the fact that co-operation between large and smaller countries can only exist on a basis of mutual confidence and mutual respect.

This speech came after the other one on April 10, and I think perhaps the minister was to some extent softening up what he had said before. This afternoon I took down two or three of the things which the minister said, and which are very much along the same line. He spoke of the United States as having "unquestioned leadership of the free world". He said that we "can view this historic development without apprehension", and he spoke of the United States, "whose people have no desire to dominate other

External Affairs

countries"; and again he said, "we have good reason to believe that they will discharge their responsibilities with courage and respect for the rights of others". These seem to me to be eminently proper sentiments. I am sure they are very sincere, and they make me wonder more than ever why we had the speech of April 10 at all.

The seriousness of it I think was indicated this evening by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Adamson). He had told me before of his feeling that the speech of the minister, freely quoted evidently in Europe, had been used by all these people unfriendly to the United States as showing that we, who are ordinarily considered to be so friendly to them, through our Secretary of State for External Affairs, were virtually accusing them of what other people had been accusing them, namely, pushing people around, and all the unpleasant things which certain leftist elements in Europe are constantly attributing to them. Perhaps the evidence of the hon. member for York West had made me feel much more deeply than I had before how unfortunate this was and how desirable it is that whatever can be done to set it right should be done. This afternoon's Journal has an indication which seems to me very strong that the idea of pushing around was remote. It gives an account of what General Marshall said today before the committee in Washington. I read the summary:

Defence secretary Marshall disclosed today that 13 United Nations allies last December vetoed an urgent United States recommendation for "hot pursuit" of Chinese red warplanes for a stated distance over the Yalu river in Manchuria.

The "hot pursuit" plan was approved by President Truman and secretary of state Acheson. But the 13 other United Nations involved in Korea-

That included Canada, no doubt-of course it included Canada. I continue:

But the 13 other United Nations involved in Korea, "voted solidly against it."

"So for the time being," Marshall said, "we had to drop that."

Now, Mr. Speaker, there you have as clear an indication as you can have that in that particular instance far from being pushed about it was anything but being pushed about anywhere. Our views and the views of others, no more important than ours, were given full effect to. In the light of that I am going to read not at length but nevertheless I propose to read something from what the minister said in his speech of April 10, which I am objecting to.

He said:

Most of us resent being called, by certain people in the United States, a reluctant friend because Canada, a smaller power with special problems of her own, ten years at war out of the last thirty, on the threshold of a great war and essential pioneer

development, and with half a continent to administer, was not able to match, even proportionately, the steps taken by the United States last June and subsequently, which were required by United Nations decisions about Korea.

And then later the minister said what surprised me very much:

Canada, in my view at least, in not making the adjustment more quickly, should surely not be criticized more than, say Argentina or Egypt, or Sweden.

I must say that seemed to me terribly out of line with the rather proud things that we have said about ourselves, and our sense of responsibility, and so on. Now we are asking to be considered on no higher basis than Argentina. It is surprising that the United States should wish to treat us on a somewhat higher basis.

Then the minister said:

The days of relatively easy and automatic political relations with our neighbour are, I think, over. They are over, because, on our side, we are more important in the continental and international scheme of things, and we loom more largely now as an important element in United States and in free world plans for defence and development.

And I might quote at greater length. However I do not think I shall because I have indicated enough to show the line the minister took. I have indicated also that, so far as I am concerned, and so far as I can discover from talking with other people, this temper of the minister, this attitude the minister showed in making his speech, is not typical of others and, as I said earlier, I hope it is not typical of the minister either. But responsible people have to be responsible for the things they say.

One other thing I wish to bring to the attention of the house, and that is that there is a practical aspect to this. We have not only diplomatic relations with the United States, but we have business relations. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) not so long ago, in another of these speeches delivered outside the House of Commons-and a very interesting speech-delivered this time in the United States, and speaking to the American Arbitration Association, referred to the problem of defence and the difficulties connected therewith. He mentioned the question of American orders in Canada for materials of war, and Canadian orders in the United States. These figures are of particular interest to us now, when it looks as though we are suffering or in danger of suffering from an adverse balance of trade. In part the Minister of National Defence said:

We would make in Canada for ourselves and for the use of other North Atlantic treaty nations equipment which, with orders from you,-

That is, from the United States:

-would be produced in Canada as economically and rapidly as anywhere else.

And then later in the speech he said:

This sort of balanced arrangement is beginning, but just beginning, to work out. During the last nine months-

And this speech was made a month ago, on March 30:

-of 1950, you had placed firm orders with us for a total amount of about $17 million. We placed firm orders with you for a total of about $159 million, but there was a lot more under consideration. We expect that our expenditures in the United States on defence equipment of $65 million in 1950-51 will reach something like $300 million in 1951-52.

Here is a very important consideration. Here is the Minister of National Defence going to the United States, speaking to a very important audience and making a plea to them. Really, he is acting as a kind of high-class sales agent-and very properly, too. But certainly I doubt very much if the best way to make Americans well disposed to buy from us is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to be banging the United States on the nose at the very moment the Minister of National Defence is trying to get them to buy more goods from us.

In the diplomatic world of course there may be ways of doing things that the rest of us, who have had experience only in the lower spheres, do not understand. But the ordinary businessman would say that that is not the best manner in which to make sales. It is like giving a cigarette to the man you are going to hang.

I undertook not to speak at length, and I am going to keep my undertaking. I have pointed out what I thought was unfortunate in what was said. I have said I am quite unable to understand why the minister did say it, because it seemed so out of keeping with a lot of other things he said. It must be the evil influence of Toronto. He went up to Toronto to speak to a combined meeting of the Canadian club and the Empire club. We all know that when people go to Toronto various things happen to them from time to time. It may be that he was carried away and perhaps said these things which he now repents. At any rate I suggest they are an unfortunate blot on the record. As I said earlier, while I know it is not possible for him to say he was wrong, he might indicate in an indirect way that he thinks he was just a little bit wrong; and possibly tonight, or when he speaks in closing the debate, he might explain to us that it was really Mr. Hyde who was up in Toronto and that Dr. Jekyll is really a very nice fellow who, in future, will always behave in a pleasant way.

External Affairs

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
CCF

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

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

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Mr. Speaker, the position of the

C.C.F. ever since the outbreak of the trouble in Korea has been exceedingly clear. Here in the House of Commons last June, later at our C.C.F. national convention at Vancouver, and since then on other occasions, we have taken the position that decisions as to what should be done in or about Korea must be United Nations decisions collectively arrived at and collectively supported by all the members of the United Nations, including Canada.

During the course of the debate today my colleague from Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) put forward proposals which we believe the government should now urge upon the United Nations as a means of achieving a cease-fire in Korea, rather than that the situation should go on from bad to worse, rather than that war in that area should linger indefinitely.

In addition, in that very important speech made by the leader of this group this afternoon, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) put forward our view that very positive steps must be taken by the nations in the fortunate position in which Canada is placed, to help improve the living standards of the more backward areas of the world. In other words, despite our understandable preoccupation with the immediate situation on the fighting fronts in Korea, we must not forget that our problem is a long-range one, and that at some stage in the piece we must achieve a different kind of world than we have at the present time. All parties in this house, all members of this house, are strong in support of the United Nations. I am sure that if we stop to think of it, however, we mean by that support not just that we are prepared to go from one police action to another, from one small scale war in the name of collective security to another, and on and on, but that we hope the day will come when under the aegis of the United Nations we may achieve those high ideals for mankind which are set out in the preamble to the charter of the United Nations.

That indeed is the reason why I felt that I wanted to get to my feet during the course of this debate and put forward a viewpoint which while held by a great many people is not too frequently put forward in these times. That viewpoint is that despite our preoccupation with the military necessities that are forced upon us, we must remember that somewhere along the road we must find a way in which to build a peaceful world or we will have no world at all.

External Affairs

It is most unfortunate that a certain group of people in the world-we have some of their number in our country-have made it difficult to talk about peace without running the risk of being misunderstood. I refer to a group of people who have a great deal to say about peace but whose aims are not in keeping with the meaning of that word. Nevertheless, that surely does not preclude the rest of us from keeping before our minds, even when we are concerned with the immediate necessity of stopping aggression in Korea, the fact that what we want and must yet win is a world of peace and human accord for all mankind.

My leader pointed out this afternoon that a year ago when it was being suggested that money might be appropriated to help to build up the backward areas of the world it was felt that the amount required was too great to make such a suggestion practical. A few months later when the necessity of military expenditures was forced upon us we found the ways and means to raise the necessary money. We have made it clear that we support the necessary defence measures that are being taken and the necessary defence expenditures, but I do hope that it is not a voice crying in the wilderness to suggest that in and through all of this we keep before us the realization that unless at some point in our struggle we achieve a world of peace there will be, as I have said already, no world at all.

A short time ago I picked up a rather interesting book dealing with semantics, the meaning of words, by Wendell Johnson. It contains a few paragraphs which express the thoughts that I have tonight much better than I could express them myself. I do not often indulge in quotations of any length, but there are two or three portions of Mr. Johnson's book that I should like to draw to the attention of the house. These are taken from the last chapter which is entitled-I find these words very intriguing-"The urgency of paradise". There is a bit of philosophy in this, but even when we are dealing with so-called practicalities it is a good idea to be guided by sound philosophy. Mr. Johnson says:

The race against destruction has now become a sprint. Prejudices and other semantic blockages that gum up the communication process will evidently have to be dissolved if the great majority of us are to escape the fleeting and thoroughly unrewarding experience of sudden death. In the past when words failed, men resorted to communication by means of hot steel, but most of us never got in the way of it. The next time words fail, millions of us will die, having discovered a second or two beforehand, if at all, how extremely

advantageous it would1 have been had we learned how to talk to other people and how to listen to them.

Obviously Mr. Johnson is basing his point and the point of his whole book on the premise that it would be a good idea, in all our relationships, if we knew the meaning of words a little better and were thus able to understand each other. Having gone on to discuss the advances that have taken place in the world of science, with particular reference to the tremendous world that has been opened up by the discovery of atomic energy, the author goes on to say:

We can no longer afford serious conflict, aggression, contempt, and hate. We can no longer tolerate studied confusion, cultivated distrust, and verbal irresponsibility. It is neither an academic nor a moral issue. It is a practical, down-to-earth question of survival. Uranium hangs heavy over our heads so long as we strive to preserve beliefs, loyalties, and institutions that disunite us-so long as we cherish the old superstitions, prides and prejudices with which we have muddled through to the crumbling edge of blinding disintegration.

After saying something more about what science can do for mankind, either for good or evil, he says:

Atomic power promises abundance as readily as desolation-but only on the condition, of course, that we welcome the abundance. It provides the effective basis for a world1 state as readily as it provides the means for nationalistic groups to fight each other to the death-but only provided we not decline the opportunity to create a world state. It contains the germ of an economy so efficient that freedom from want and from drudgery might be realized in fact, quite as clearly as it contains the seeds of economic ruin-again provided, of course, we do not too fondly cherish want and drudgery.

Then Mr. Johnson closes his book with a short paragraph of one sentence. Like the title of his last chapter I find this paragraph, this last sentence, most intriguing. This is what he says:

We have arrived, that is, at the strange circumstance of having to accept a virtual paradise if we are not to perish: only in our more stately mansions may refuge still be found.

We in this group recognize the need at this stage of world events for the defence preparations that we are making. We recognize and assert the need for United Nations collective action to stop aggression. But we also urge, as was so well put this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell), that we approach external affairs with the realization that it is the long view that counts. If I may have the privilege of paraphrasing what Mr. Johnson has said along with what my leader said this afternoon, I would say that only in the more stately mansions of the kind of world pictured this afternoon by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar, a world wherein we of

North America help to raise the standard of living of the peoples of southeast Asia, a world wherein we help wherever help is needed, may refuge still be found. But I believe that it can be found, and I believe that our job in supporting the United Nations is not simply to go from one police action to another, perchance from police action into wholesale war, but rather our task is even yet to achieve the high purposes set out in the preamble to the charter of the United Nations, and to win the kind of world in which there is peace and human accord for all mankind.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees

Progressive Conservative

Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):

Mr. Speaker, tonight I should like to deal briefly with the famine in India and the international implications which that famine has raised. I should also like to discuss briefly the part which I believe this country can play in helping to alleviate that famine and thereby helping to win a very important economic campaign. In order to better describe what is going on in India today I should like to quote from the issue of April 21 of The Economist, which is a recognized authority on world affairs. The passage reads as follows:

Traditionally, India has at least one bad crop year in five; but this year the prospect of extreme famine in many different parts of the sub-continent constitutes a unique and desperate challenge. For the people, the suffering which is only just beginning, will certainly match the horror of five million deaths in the Bengal famine of 1943, and may considerably exceed it . . . Although the full extent of the famine cannot yet be known and may not really come to light until well after the monsoon breaks in June, the measure of India's present crisis is already clear. The only areas where the harvest has been at all satisfactory are East Punjab, Rajasthan and Madhya Bharat . . . The result is that in some districts there are no grain stocks at all, and in others only a fraction of what is needed to keep the population barely alive . . . The United States is debating whether to give 2 million tons of wheat. China has recently offered 1 million and Russia has proposed a barter deal for 500,000 tons. Even if these various offers were implemented, and the first shipments were made at once, it is questionable whether sufficient food could arrive and be distributed soon enough to prevent disaster.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that that outlines very clearly the gravity of the situation. I also feel sure that there is no member of the house who would not agree that from the humanitarian aspect Canada, and any other country which produces a surplus of food over and above what is actually required to feed its people, should do whatever it possibly can to try to help alleviate this frightful disaster.

I should like to deal with the political aspect of the situation, and again I should

External Affairs

like to quote from The Economist. The extract reads as follows:

Apart therefore from internal propaganda playing upon the unpopularity which the famine is inevitably bringing on the Indian government, the communist world is making a determined bid to capture the hearts and loyalties of millions of Indians by offering to step in where America can be made out to have failed. The delay in passing legislation through Congress to send the two million-or even one million-tons of grain proposed by President Truman, is unquestionably beginning to have a worse effect on Indian opinion than if the offer had never been made. Perhaps the Indians could increase their own purchases of American wheat, but even the most lavish expenditure of dollars would still leave a tragic gap. Both the Chinese and Russians have therefore made a concerted and deliberate political move in choosing this moment to announce their own offers of "aid." Hitherto America has at least had the international field to itself in providing economic assistance. The Chinese could not, of course, actually provide a million tons without starving their own people- though the Russians would no doubt release some stocks through Manchuria to be classed as Chinese deliveries. Nor could they ship it without Russian help. Equally, the Russian offer to barter jute, tea and cotton is insincere. Moscow's original offer was to provide 50,000 tons of grain, but when the Russians discovered that India had no surplus of the commodities they wanted, they pushed their offer up to 500,000 tons for its propaganda effort . . . The apparent fact that Mao Tse-tung should be willing and able to come to India's rescue, in spite of China's poverty, can be dressed up as a powerful argument for communism.

I think it is obvious that the situation is now developing into a conflict between the communist and non-communist countries for the friendship of India. I believe it is very unfortunate indeed that the United States is still withholding its offer of two million tons of wheat for political reasons, but this gives us a golden opportunity to show 'the way. As the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Graydon) and the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) pointed out this afternoon, we cannot defeat the forces of communism by military campaigns alone. Economic campaigns are every bit as important. We now have a wonderful chance to help to win an economic campaign where the stakes are a subcontinent.

We know, Mr. Speaker, that Canada has offered No. 5 wheat but the Indians have been unable to accept that offer because that wheat, which is normally used for cattle feed in this country, cannot be milled into atta, the Indian flour, by the primitive methods which are the only methods available to the Indian people for milling wheat. Therefore I believe it is up to us to make available wheat which the Indians can use and which they can mill into flour. If we do not and if the United States does not make wheat available which the Indians can use, then they will have no alternative but to accept the offers of Russia and China, even though those

External Affairs

offers have strings attached to them. If we fail and the communists' offers are accepted, then there is absolutely no doubt that India will move a great deal closer to Russia and China and a great deal farther away from the western democracies. I believe the chances are very great that we would never get India back because it is hardly likely that you would accept a former friend who had refused you food when you were starving.

I know that there are no stocks of wheat higher than No. 5 grade available at the present time in the normal trading sense of availability. However, I believe the situation is so vital that we in this -country must give up stocks which we have at the present time, and that we must do everything we possibly can to persuade our customers, who also are members of the North Atlantic treaty organization, to temporarily forgo shipments which are earmarked for them for immediate delivery. I believe that this contest for the friendship of India is as vital as any military campaign that has ever been waged. If we and the United States fail to make available wheat which the Indians can accept and use immediately we will lose that campaign. This, I believe we will all agree, we cannot afford to do. Therefore the government must act immediately.

In conclusion I would request the minister when he sums -up to advise this house what action the government plans in connection with supplying in the immediate future wheat which the government of India can accept.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

William Joseph Browne

Progressive Conservative

Mr. W. J. Browne (St. John's West):

I am

sorry to disappoint so many hon. members opposite who expected the minister to reply, but I have a few observations I should like to make before he does so.

I have followed the debate today very carefully, listening to all the speakers; and I am sure all those who have done so will realize that there is a sharp divergence of opinion in this house on the way the United Nations is conducting the war in Korea, and a great deal of doubt as to Canadian policy in regard to that war. I realize that this is a very difficult subject, upon which a person should not enter without some preparation. There is an extensive background behind the war in Korea, and unless we have some knowledge of the background it is very difficult to get a true appreciation of the picture there. I do not for the moment suggest that I possess such knowledge to any great extent, but I have attempted to learn something about it.

It seems to me the party to my left is very sympathetic to the communist government in China. On every occasion members of that

party have spoken on the subject in this house they have either advocated the recognition of communist China by the Canadian government, or the seating of communist China at the United Nations, or the handing over of Formosa to communist China, or the removal of General MacArthur from his United Nations command. On the very eve of his removal we witnessed an exhibition here by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Thatcher) during which in my opinion he used outrageous epithets in referring to that distinguished soldier. Whatever may be the faults of General MacArthur I believe the majority of members of this house will recognize his capabilities, his sincerity, and his distinguished career of fifty-two years in the service of his country as a military man. I think it ill behooves the member for Moose Jaw to use the terms he did in his speech, which was entirely inappropriate and out of order.

In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Asiatic situation is just as important as the European situation. I believe that if communism wins in the Asiatic area it wifi be strengthened to carry on its activities in other parts of the world. For the life of me I cannot understand why no one seems to regard the conquest of Japan as something -likely to be carried out by the communist governments of Russia and China. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) does not seem to regard that as a possibility; but if it should occur I contend that it would be a greater disaster to the free world than the conquest of western Germany at the present time.

The party to my left show no sympathy whatever to Chiang Kai-shek, who was defeated. In his address today the Secretary of State for External Affairs asked whether, if Chiang Kai-shek were assisted, there was any likelihood that he would be able to defeat the army which had driven him out of China. Let us look back on the history of China during the past few years and see what Chiang Kai-shek had to contend with; then perhaps we may get a better appreciation of his difficulties and have some sympathy with his present position. Chiang Kai-shek first became known as a military commander over twenty-five years ago. Later he had to contend with Russian communism, then with Chinese communism, and- then with the Japanese invasion. He almost

succeeded in wiping out communism in China, driving the communists back to one small province in the northwest and reducing the number of their soldiers to less than 100,000. It was at the time of the Japanese invasion that Chiang Kai-shek was held prisoner by a

young Christian general, whose name I cannot remember. He was in the hands of his enemies and would have been executed but for the intervention of the government of communist Russia, who felt that it would be better for Chiang Kai-shek to be fighting the Japanese than the few thousand communist soldiers who could get no support from the great mass of the Chinese people. So Chiang Kai-shek was released and waged war against Japan for many years.

But he made the mistake of recognizing the communists in China, who were assisted by Russia to greatly expand their forces. When Russia intervened almost at the close of the war against Japan, she captured the industrial and military power of Japan in Manchuria and passed over to the communists the ammunition and equipment there obtained. So in a short time the communists became more powerful than Chiang Kai-shek himself. It was because of the great assistance, moral and material, given the Chinese communists by Russia that they were able to defeat Chiang Kai-shek and eventually drive him from the mainland to take refuge on the island of Formosa.

As yet the United Nations has not granted recognition to the communists in China. It is true that the government of the United Kingdom granted that regime recognition very quickly; but as the minister has himself pointed out, communist China has not been quick to grant recognition to the United Kingdom or to exchange representatives. Something more is involved here than mere courtesy. The communist government in China seems to be actuated by the same hatred of the western nations as communist Russia. I believe my hon. friends of the C.C.F. party are inclined to think that communist China is not directed by the same spirit that directs the government of communist Russia. It should not be hard for hon. members to believe that communism is the same all over the world. We have ample evidence in this country of the secret intrigues that were going on, even conducted by a member of this house, to assist Russia in securing world domination. The United States, the United Kingdom, every country outside of Russia has been the scene of these intrigues. It is undoubtedly the outspoken intent of communist Russia to get world domination.

I was astonished this afternoon to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) make one statement which I believe he could not uphold. He makes a statement, but he does not justify it and I challenge him to justify it.

External Affairs

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Order.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

William Joseph Browne

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Browne (St. John's West):

I shall make the statement. He said that the defeat of armed aggression in Korea was the sole military aim of the United Nations. Then he went on to quote with approval a statement by Warren Austin, and he said that it had been said "the United Nations forces were fighting to defeat communism," but that was not correct. If that is not correct, what is the correct position? Does anyone in this house consider for a moment that the attack of the North Koreans on the South Koreans was not inspired by Russia? Does the minister himself believe that? Does he not consider that there was agreement beforehand between the communists of North Korea, the communists of China and the communists of Russia to win over South Korea, and get a base for the attack on Japan? I shall go so far as to say that. If that attack was inspired by communism, and especially by the communists in the Kremlin, what are we fighting in North Korea? Is it not communism we are fighting? Was that not a stage in the communist plan for world domination?

Whatever we might say about General MacArthur, there is no one who can deny that he is the best authority on events in Asia. He has been there for the last fourteen years without a break, and he has encountered all these difficulties. He has brought Japan, a defeated nation, to a stage of prosperity which must be the envy of all the other nations in the east today. In his opinion, we are fighting communism in Korea. Certainly, we are fighting it there more than we are fighting it in Europe. We are fighting not a cold war in Asia, but a hot war.

Now, sir, if we are not fighting communism in Korea, how does the United Nations propose to fight it? The minister speaks of limited objectives. What are the limited objectives now? It was all right for the United Nations forces to pursue the enemy when it consisted only of North Koreans as far as the boundary of Manchuria, but that does not appear to be the objective any longer. My hon. friends to the left recommend that there should be a zone of ten miles each side of the 38th parallel, a sort of no man's land. The forces from South Korea should not advance beyond that area Is it true, and I hope the minister in his reply will give us some idea of United Nations policy in that respect, that the United Nations do not intend to do what they did before, and try to drive the enemy to the Manchurian boundary? Perhaps there is some truth in the statement of General MacArthur, and I believe of General

External Affairs

Ridgway too, that the war in Korea is now likely to end in a stalemate; that it is not possible for the United Nations forces, with the equipment and men that they have at the present time, to do much more than fight a defensive action. Certainly, they do not appear to have any intention of carrying the war to the Manchurian boundary at the present time.

As the minister has said, we are now on the defensive. One wave of the attack has passed, and we are now awaiting the second wave. No one knows what might happen as a result of that. The United Nations commander has confidence that he can repel the attack, and not allow himself to be driven into the sea. The other night I asked, and I ask again now, what is the United Nations policy in regard to Korea? We were told they went there as a police action. We are told again today that we are there to defeat armed aggression. What about compensation? What about those people from South Korea who have trudged mile upon mile through winter slush, frost and snow, spring muds and torrents, back and forth, men, women and children by the hundreds of thousands, like some great sea of suffering humanity. Our people here have hearts to feel and minds to think about the suffering of these people in South Korea. My hon. friends on my left, and the minister himself, tell us that we cannot defeat communism by military means alone. Neither can we defeat communism by economic means alone. Something more than talk about long-range plans and economic rehabilitation of these countries is necessary. There is a vital problem in front of us. There is a question of justice. We know what it means when a person is injured in his person, in his reputation or in his property. What about a nation when it is injured in its person and in its property? What about the houses destroyed, the thousands of people killed and perhaps the millions injured, families separated? What about all the suffering that has been caused? Is there to be any punishment for

these aggressors? I hear no talk of punishment in the councils of the United Nations. In this house I have heard no mention of punishment of North Korea or communist China. On the other hand, I hear talk of appeasement.

Mr. Speaker, it is eleven o'clock, and I would move the adjournment of the debate.

On motion of Mr. Browne (St. John's West) the debate was adjourned.

Topic:   QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sub-subtopic:   REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE
Permalink

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. Fournier (Hull):

Mr. Speaker, last

week the Prime Minister announced that tomorrow, Tuesday, we would move to go into supply and take up the estimates of national defence, without calling any new departments. From eight o'clock until nine, there will be private and public bills. At nine o'clock the Minister of Trade and Commerce will ask to revert to motions to *make a statement on the results of the trade conference at Torquay. I understand that the participating nations have agreed to make this statement at the same time on the ninth, but owing to the difference in time, if we do not have this statement in the house tomorrow night, the members would get it by press from the outside. Then, after this statement, we shall resume consideration of the estimates of national defence.

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

May 4, 1951