February 3, 1955

CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY


The house resumed, from Wednesday, February 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Yves Leduc (Verdun) for an address to His Excellency the Governor General in reply to his speech at the opening of the session, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Rowe, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Hahn.



The Address-Mr. W. M. Hamilton


PC

William McLean Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. W. M. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my remarks yesterday I used the phrase or expression "a government that has the political morality of an alley cat". I notice that in the report in the Gazette this morning, attributed to the Canadian Press, that has been translated and attributed to me as follows: "the morals of an alley cat." I prefer to stand on my original phrase, which restricted it to the political field. The press gallery and the Canadian Press, who are so much better acquainted with the government and have known them so much longer than I have, can make any extension of it they wish.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Hugues Lapointe (Minister of Veterans Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Lapointe:

It might extend to the other side.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Joseph McCann (Minister of National Revenue)

Liberal

Mr. McCann:

You would be included.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

William McLean Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):

This, Mr. Speaker, is the time of the false prophet. Our progress has been so rapid, the changes around us so great, that many of us have lost sight of those accepted and objective standards by which mankind has been guided for so many generations. This is the age of grotesque and perverse fanaticisms, of bigotries which would be contemptible if they were not all so dangerous. This is the generation of the big lie, the mass delusion. Only the obvious seems not worth saying, only the truth remains in want of publicity. All too often the good is despised as sinful or corrupt and every kind of evil is permitted to parade under the name of virtue.

In this time of change the signs and symbols which have guided the lives of men for centuries have suddenly become unreliable and obscure. In the universal deluge of ideas and mechanical advances men swim about amid the intellectual wreckage of their culture like torpedoed seamen clinging to different coloured bits of straw, not one of them sufficient to support a man.

The cause or occasion of the revolution in our time has been the coming of the machine. But its real challenge, like that of all such periods, is not political or economic so much as it is spiritual. This is the challenge that this government has failed to meet more than any other, the spiritual challenge, the challenge which has brought Canada ever forward. Oh, they have been aided by economic conditions, and they have stayed in power. They have had assistance from various factors, national and international; but as a government and as a party I suggest that they are spiritually gutless and intellectually bankrupt. They have hoped and groped their way through the past 20 years, calling on the civil service for ideas, intelligence and brains.

They have been raiding the same civil service for cabinet material when they could not produce it within their own party. They have been digging into provincial Liberal parties for cabinet material when those same provincial Liberals found they had no future in their own party. '

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

We have never called on you yet.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

William McLean Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):

My

call will come from the people of Canada, not from men who have descended so far that in recent months we have seen them dig into this same civil service, take a man out of it for a preliminary canter in politics, and then when that did not work out put him back into the civil service again. In this respect they treated some of our most cherished traditions of service to this country as they would a box of candy from which you take out one piece, eat it, take out another piece, bite a corner off and put it back into the box.

They have been astute politicians, as leaders they have been lucky; but any government that could produce and support the document which was presented to us a short time ago as the speech from the throne, a document devoid of imagination or of any challenge to the people of this country, a document which refused to accept the facts of economic life in Canada as we find them today, a document which skated around the important issues of the day in order to make reference to matters which are of comparatively minor significance; any party which produces such a document should have nothing but shame in their souls at this point. I for one will vote against any recognition of that document, and without reservations about the party that has brought it into being. I shall be able to do that with great satisfaction.

There are one or two brief points I should like to refer to in passing in case the government has overlooked them. I would remind the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) that the St. Lawrence seaway which is going to have a tremendous effect on our city of Montreal is also well on the way to strangling the traffic passing from the island of Montreal to the south shore. There is one solution and one solution alone which is agreed upon by those who have an intimate knowledge of the situation, and that is a tunnel under the river.

I remind the minister of the need of proper harbour facilities at Montreal, where the passenger sheds are in many ways inferior to our air terminals. You all know what I think of the air terminals of Canada. They bring no credit whatsoever to the great country which

is ours. I would remind the Minister ot Transport of our need for a fireboat at the island.

Finally, I remind the Minister of Transport that Canadians from one coast to the other have hung their heads in shame at the news that the Canadian National Railways has not sufficient trust and confidence in this country to operate their hotel which is being erected with public funds. That is a blot not only on the record of this government but on the record of all Canada. I think the government should look back on this with shame.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roseiown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I endeavoured to get leave to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely the Formosa situation. I have no criticism to make of the fact that you denied me that request. I think the matter is of urgent public importance, but it is your prerogative to decide whether there is sufficient urgency and whether there is a debate in progress which would permit one to discuss such a matter. This afternoon I want to say something of what I was going to say yesterday.

First 1 want to say I believe that from San Francisco right up to the present time Canada has had many opportunities of speaking out when she has refrained from speaking clearly. I believe that at San Francisco and subsequently Canada was looked upon, because of our situation, because we were not beholden in any way to any other country for the financing of the war or for assistance in our participation in that war, as a country which could speak for that group of nations which is below the level of the five great powers, I do not care whether you call them middle powers or smaller powers.

I am of the opinion that this is the time when Canada should speak with a clear voice regarding the Far Eastern situation. I am going to say that I shall respect the suggestion made yesterday by the acting minister of external affairs, for I am quite certain that what I am going to say this afternoon will create no difficulty or be in any way of an inflammatory nature.

I must confess that I was surprised at the .attitude taken yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he expressed opposition to my request for leave. It is only a few weeks ago' since the hon. member stated that he hoped we were not returning to the days of Mackenzie King, when external affairs were kept more or less under close cover. I might add that I can recollect speeches by the late Gordon Gray-don, when he was spokesman for the Conservative party, and in his absence speeches

The Address-Mr. Coldwell by the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming), criticizing the government because time and time again in this house we found ourselves faced with accomplished facts in relation to external affairs.

It seems to me, as I said in my proposed motion yesterday, that this House of Commons should have an opportunity of discussing and expressing an opinion in connection with the grave matters in the Far East. At noon today I heard the one o'clock C.B.C. news broadcast. I regretted exceedingly to hear that the premier of the people's republic of China is refusing the invitation to attend the meeting of the security council, but I understand the reasons for that refusal. It was stated that the premier said he would not be willing to send representatives to the security council until the government on the mainland of China, governing the overwhelming bulk of the Chinese people, was recognized and until the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek were removed both from the United Nations and the security council.

Now, one does not have to agree with the ideology of the government of China to say that that government is in fact the government of China, and has been for several years. Nor does one have to repeat what has been so often repeated in this house, that that government was recognized in 1950 by the government of the United Kingdom, with the expressed public support of the present Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, and the present foreign secretary, Sir Anthony Eden. In other words the British people, through their political leaders of all parties, recognized the fact of a new government in China long ago. So far as this and other countries are concerned, we recognize all kinds of governments, governments that cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classified as democratic and are often totalitarian.

Nor can we hide behind the fact that the government of China came into being through revolution. How often do we recognize the governments of Latin America when constant changes are made in those governments by assassination and by revolution. One can look over the list of the South American governments and see that a number have come into being by revolution and sometimes by assassination, yet we have recognized them. One does not have to agree with the ideology of a government to recognize it as, in fact, the government of a country.

This whole situation regarding Formosa is of course very dangerous, dangerous to the peace of the world; and, should war develop, very dangerous to the security and safety of our own country. It is said, of course, that

798 HOUSE OF

The Address-Mr. Coldwell China's claim to Formosa is based upon insecure grounds. It is said that the claim of the government on the mainland of China to Formosa has failed to recognize the fact that for 50 years Formosa was controlled by Japan, and a century or so before was for 30 years under the government of the Netherlands.

If that is so may I ask, Mr. Speaker, by what right is Chiang Kai-shek there? Chiang Kai-shek says he is the government of China, and claims Formosa on behalf of his regime as the government of China. You cannot have that argument both ways. If Formosa is not in reality a part of China, then why is Chiang Kai-shek there? Why are we recognizing him as the government of China if that is the argument that is used? I heard it used last night by a United States newspaperman speaking from New York during the course of the mid-week review. I say then why is Chiang Kai-shek regarded by us or by anybody else as the government of China if it is true that China has no claim to Formosa?

Of course one cannot overlook the fact that both at Cairo and at Potsdam it was agreed that with the cessation of hostilities Formosa should again become a part of China, as it was before the Japanese conquered it 50 years before. I am not going to say that is the correct disposition of the country. In 1950, when I had the great privilege and pleasure of being associated with our delegation as an observer at the United Nations in New York, I made the suggestion that I thought a proper disposition of Formosa was to neutralize it under the United Nations and let the Formosan people decide what the future of that island should be. I am not arguing that it should be returned to China. I am arguing, hbwever, that the difficulties that have arisen in the Far East, and which now threaten the peace of the world, are largely due to the fact we have failed to recognize that there is a new government in China. We cannot hide behind the argument that that government came into being by revolution or that it has an ideology we do not like. When we look around the world we can see many countries with ideologies we do not like and with governments we do not like, which came into power by revolution.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe the policy of the United States in the Far East is just as dangerous, and just as wrong, as I believe the association of Canada with and the strengthening of NATO is right. Just as I believe the one thing, I believe the other.

I believe the one thing because I feel that if we drift along we shall drift into a situation which will bring about a catastrophic war, and I believe the other is a move in the direction of peace. When we look at some of the

statements that have been made recently, such as President Eisenhower's message to congress or the President's news conference of yesterday, we see the dangers that may ensue.

Some of the great newspapers of the world have clearly seen those dangers. Here is a statement by the Manchester Guardian. I do not suppose anyone will say the Manchester Guardian is a socialist newspaper, a communist newspaper or other than what it is, one of the great Liberal newspapers of the world. I have in my hand the issue of January 27, and I should like to read one or two paragraphs from what they say about President Eisenhower's message. They say this:

The ambiguities of President Eisenhower's special-message to congress on Formosa are deplorable. The message is so clumsily constructed that it appears to contain a veiled threat of American attack upon the Chinese mainland. It says that the United States must be prepared to "take appropriate military action" against "any concentration of Chinese communist forces obviously undertaken to facilitate attack upon Formosa."

As I pointed out to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson) when he was referring to this particular speech, President Eisenhower failed to say that he would take the same steps to prevent an attack by Chiang's forces on the Chinese mainland. Then after setting forth the situation as they see it, they say this of the speech:

It gives apparent credibility to some of the communist propaganda claiming that the United States is planning an attack upon China. It is a gross blunder. *

The damaging effect of these phrases cannot be undone by saying that their aim is no more than to assure the security of Formosa and the Pescadores. The threat to the mainland and the implicit American commitment to defend Quemoy remain. It does not help to declaim about "the free world's stake in a free Formosa." Nine-tenths of the free world has grave doubts about, the kind of freedom provided by Chiang's regime (even if it has graver doubts about the communists) .

Those are not my words. Those are the words of the Manchester Guardian. If I may I should like to quote one of our own Canadian papers which has had the respect of a large reading public in Canada over the years, particularly in western Canada. I refer to the Winnipeg Free Press of January 31.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Oh, oh.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

The Address-Mr. Caldwell be made. It cannot be made satisfactorily by force of arms, bringing catastrophe upon the rest of the world.

May I say here I am convinced that what our great neighbour to the south is doing at the present time is alienating the vast millions of people upon whom we must rely in Asia for support in building up democracy all across the world. That is one of the factors in this situation which is most disturbing; the alienation of India, the alienation of Burma, the alienation of Indonesia, the alienation of those teeming millions who look upon the United States as an interloper in a civil war attempting to refasten upon China a form of western imperialism. That is a factor I think we should not overlook, and one reason we should make our position clear while there is yet time. I think the only way this can be done is by negotiations through the United Nations; and if we have to pay the price of recognition of the present government in China, that price is not too high to preserve the peace of the world.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming:

Would the hon. member permit a question?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

Yes.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Methuen Fleming

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fleming:

My hon. friend will realize that it is asked seriously. First, does my friend advocate recognition of the so-called people's government at Peking as the government of the mainland of China and, second, does he advocate that it be recognized as the government of Formosa?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

To the first question I answer yes. I have urged recognition of the people's government of China in this house on a good many occasions over the last several years.

I did not advocate it during the Korean war.

I did advocate it before that war broke out.

I said during the Korean war that as long as that war lasted we could not recognize the people's government of China. The Korean war ended, and I believed there was an opportunity to make that recognition. Earlier in my remarks this afternoon I made it very clear, I believe, that as far as Formosa is concerned it should be placed under the United Nations. It should be neutralized and subsequently the people of Formosa, after the elimination of Chiang and his armies, should decide the future of their own country. That is my position, and I want to make that very clear.

These very negotiations in which we are engaged today do of course involve in effect recognition of China. We negotiated with them directly at Geneva. We negotiated with them on the Korean matter, and it is very difficult to see how you can negotiate

with a government you do not recognize. If the price we have to pay is recognition, it seems to me that price is well worth paying.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hees:

Would the hon. member permit a question?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
CCF

Major James William Coldwell

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

Mr. Coldwell:

May I say I was courteous enough to sit down when the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) rose, but we are not in committee and I do not propose to enter into personal debate. I want to put the view I hold before the house, and if the hon. member disagrees with me I should like to hear his views subsequently.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hees:

I just want to ask a question. Mr. Coldwell: All right.

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hees:

I should like to ask the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) a question in all seriousness, as did the hon. member for Fglinton. The hon. member used the phrase "after Chiang and his army have been eliminated from Formosa". What did he mean by that?

Topic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

February 3, 1955