Mr. J. A. Bradeile (Cochrane):
Mr. Speaker before I proceed with the main part of my remarks I want to thank the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Fleming) for the kind words he had to say about my activities as chairman of the external affairs committee It is very easy for me to extend those kind words to every member of our committee, tc every official of the department and to the minister of the Department of External Affairs in view of the co-operation they have always given in our work.
Before I proceed further, I also want tc extend my congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson for the magnificent work he has done at the United Nations and for the honour he received last fall in being appointed presidenl of the general assembly. It was an honoui that was highly deserved indeed. We alsc know that any of the higher positions, ever that of secretary general of the United Nations, are within the reach of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but I believe i1 would be in order for me to say that I believe the Canadian people would want him te remain in public life in Canada because we need his talents and statesmanship here and I say that very sincerely indeed.
I should like to say a few words abou the United Nations. Since the inception o: the organization the glaring lights of publl city have always been focused on that grea international body, but more so than evei during the last four or five months because of a certain situation that has existed amonj the personnel of the United Nations, and the praise and criticism that are heard fron many parts of the world.
It is hard to tell whether there is more argument at the United Nations or aboui the United Nations. Whichever it may be
ihat to a great extent we live in a harmonious and friendly spirit with our neighbours to the south, and that real amity and understanding always predominate in all our lealings with her.
There is one other matter that I wish to mention briefly, a matter which sometimes puzzles me. It is apparent that there is an bversensitiveness between friendly nations. :f there is some little thing on which we do rot entirely agree-within our own ranks- t is greatly publicized and bitterly criticized. That sort of thing I believe plays into the lands of Joe Stalin; because he hopes deeply hat the allies, the members of the democratic world, will fight one another before long. That idea results from the verbal fighting hat sometimes goes on between our friends when they do not entirely agree with one mother. It is possible within nations to have liversity of opinions.
We see in the press in this country now ome of the ideas that were expressed 60 'ears ago, and which should be conducive to lur good relations. Surely charity and com-irehension should be displayed in interna-ional dealings. We should realize and ippreciate what the United States has done. Ve should be aware that up to the present he has had a casualty list of nearly 150,000 nen in Korea, and she has given nearly $35 ifilion to Europe and various democracies in irder to assist in their defence and rehabili-ation after the last war.
As the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Terming) so very well said a few moments go, there are the sacrifices which have been nade by my old motherland France, in Indo-Ihina, the sacrifices made by Britain in the ast war when she was for nearly a year the nly rampart against the barbarism which vould have flooded the world if England had ;one down. All these things we must remem-er in our contacts with one another, and :eep as the greatest incentives to be strongly rnited, even if we have some differences. I .o not mean to say that we should not express ur sentiments clearly and strongly, but at he same time we should always keep in our rinds that such expressions should be so ramed as to not offend our friends. It might e possible to offend our enemies, but never ;t us go so far as to offend our friends, 'hey are too much of a treasure, of a neces-Lty, to lose.
I listened with a great deal of interest to he travelogue delivered by the hon. member ar Eglinton (Mr. Fleming). It would not urprise you to know that when you mention ou are a Canadian, everything is wide open ar you; you immediately become persona rata. Why is that so? It is because the
people know that during world war I and world war II and following those wars, Canada was not at the peace table to obtain her pound of flesh, or for glory or terrestrial or maritime aggrandizement. They knew that Canada, in those two great wars, had helped to maintain the principles of Christianity, freedom and democracy. That is the kind of spirit that must prevail amongst us under all conditions. Otherwise, I repeat, there may be some cause of deep friction which may hurt us badly indeed, and stultify our efforts for peace.
I might repeat something that I have mentioned for the last three years. Only 25 years ago in this parliament we used to say that the surest way to bring about an international war would be through the erection of tariff walls between nations. We do not seem to have learned very much from those bitter lessons of the past, because even today we are erecting tariff walls that are hurting not only other nations in the world but also ourselves. In this connection I want to say that I sincerely hope the day may come when we will see a united nations of Europe, and of the world as far as tariffs are concerned. We must be realists on this score. I believe that the treaty of peace between Japan and the allies, for which Mr. Dulles was mostly responsible, is a masterpiece. It is a Christian treaty of peace; but what are we going to do with Japan? Are we going to allow her the means of survival? Are we going to raise a holler if a few little dolls or small toys come from Japan, or a few little artificial flowers? Are we going to ask for high tariffs against that production? If we do that against Japan, if we do that against India, Pakistan and against the Middle East, or any other country, then it is real war. Those people will resent it the same way the European nations and our country have resented the action taken by the United States against some of their production. Surely we know the bitterness of war and have learned that we should do everything in our power to avoid it. There should be enough statesmanship within the democratic nations to find a way to end dumping and prevent the destruction of our own economy. We should find a way of having freer trade than we have at the present time and more comprehension in economic matters.
I should like to say a few words about a Pacific pact. In my section of the country we have always been in favour of the Atlantic pact. As you know, we who live in northern Ontario are in the geographical centre of Canada. Our viewpoint is national in scope. I believe we are the only section of Canada having knowledge of municipal administration in the east and municipal
administration in the west. We generally take a broad point of view on all matters coming before the House of Commons. We have no quarrel with the wheat producers in the west; we have no quarrel with the fishermen in the east or west; in a word, we have no quarrel with anyone. We always try to find the national viewpoint on all problems that come before us.
To be sure of the sentiments of my own people on the Pacific pact, I attended a number of study groups in my constituency during the last few months. They were strongly against it. The primary reason was that, as Canadians, in the past we have shown that we do not need to mention our idealism or our generosity. Our young people shed their blood for some principle we thought worthy of defending, and we will do it again if needed. Today we are only a nation of 14 million people, large in area, under a healthy but harsh climate, and sparsely populated.
I do not mean to say that we should keep away from anything pertaining to the Pacific. We must help, but not through a pact. If we have a Pacific pact in the same sense that we have an Atlantic pact-and it should be in that sense-the expenditure that will be necessary will be very great. Let us remember this. Marx said in his writings that one of the best ways of destroying democracy would be by high taxation. No doubt Stalin knows what an influence that will have on a democracy, and the effect and costs of the cold war. Taxation in Canada, although it is lower than in some countries, is still high. We have, therefore, to be realists.
During the last war, Mr. Speaker, I was deputy speaker in this house. We sat for many months every session considering the war appropriations bills. I remember many, many occasions upon which crises arose because of the shortage of manpower in Europe. At that time we had about 12-5 million people. We must think in terms of our own population in connection with the effort we are able to make. If we had 50 million or 75 million people, then it would be a different thing; but we must be realists on this matter of military pacts. Supposing we had a Pacific pact as well as an Atlantic pact. It would cost us a total of from $4 billion to $5 billion, and would mean that we would not be able to properly support both of them. That is the reaction I received from my people. We belong to the whole world, and we must be realists. I believe the minister expressed the sentiments of the people of Canada generally in connection with a Pacific pact. We are interested in the east and we are interested in the Pacific.
The Colombo plan has shown that, as wel as the help we have given and will continui to give to the people of Asia and the Middli East.
I repeat that I believe I am voicing thi sentiments of a great majority of my owl people. I believe it will be impossible fo: us to be part and parcel of a Pacific pact oi a large scale, and at the same time give tb necessary assistance to the Atlantic pact.
I wanted to say a few words about ; trip I made last summer to the mid-Orient am Europe, but I will have other opportunities t speak about it this session. I want to mak my situation very clear. I was honoured b; the Canadian Katznelson Institute of Montrea by being included in a group that spent si: weeks in the new nation of Israel. This grou; was composed of 36 people from New Yor] university in the United States, includin students, professors and professional men o the Jewish nationality. I was invited, with out knowing about it in advance, no dout due to the good offices of my friend the hor member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) in connectio: with some work I had done for the zioni: movement in Canada. I was not representin Canada in any official capacity. I was nc going as chairman of the external affair committee. I was not going as a politicia but as a citizen of Canada. I preface m remarks with that statement in order to mak my position clear.
Since my return at the end of last Septem ber I have given a series of lectures in differ ent parts of Ontario and Quebec. I will likel go west later in the spring. In this connec tion I have received some very biased letter: what we call anti-semitic letters. It is nc worthy of a Christian to be anti-semitic. ] is not charitable because the divine victim o the cross, just before He drew His last breatl asked His Father to forget what had happene on Calvary. Surely that should be sufficier for any Christian, for any civilized people, t keep them from practising anti-semitism. also received quite a number of very critic: letters from Arab citizens.
Now, these letters hurt me quite a b because I went to Israel with an open mine I wanted to be objective in my thinkin towards Israel as well as towards the othc countries that I visited. I asked for an obtained a visa to go to Trans-Jordan, to go 1 Lebanon and to Egypt. I could not go to Syri because I could not obtain a visa from Ottaw; Washington or even when I was in the east i go to that country. Again, in every sectio of the Arab world into which I went I ha an open mind. I was well received indee because they knew that the Canadian peop! want peace in the Middle East. We want tt
Topic: EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic: REFERENCE OF ESTIMATES OF DEPARTMENT TO STANDING COMMITTEE