September 7, 1961 (24th Parliament, 4th Session)


George Stanley White (Government Whip in the Senate)

Progressive Conservative

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.

Full View