1952-06-20

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):: In November, 1950, Mr. Speaker, I made an announcement that the lack of steel had made it necessary for the government to suspend temporarily construction of the proposed Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry. Today I am happy to inform the house that the government has reviewed the situation with respect to availability of scarce materials and, on the advice of the Canadian maritime commission, and after consultation with the premier of Nova Scotia has agreed that tenders should now be invited for the construction of the vessel.
I should like to remind the house that the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry project is not only a federal-provincial project, it is an international project including as it does the construction of approaches, causeway, pierhead and terminal facilities by the state of Maine and the town of Bar Harbor. I am happy to say that the Maine legislature has passed, and the governor has signed, the legislative bill relating to this work.
May I say a word or two about the ship itself? The vessel will have an over-all length of 348 feet; breadth at main deck 65 feet; car capacity 150 automobiles; total passengers carried 600. There are two car decks, the lower car deck having head clearance for long-distance refrigerated trailer trucks and buses. The service speed of the vessel will be approximately 18J knots. A notable feature of the vessel's construction is that it will be equipped with a Denny-Brown stabilizer which has the effect of minimizing vesselrolling during rough weather. In the summer tourist season the ship is scheduled to make the round-trip voyage in daylight hours. Our Nova Scotia members can readily appreciate the value of such a unit.
While initially the ferry will be dependent on summer tourist traffic, the real justification for the vessel is the hope that having furnished this new gateway there will develop a commercial business by truck which will bring the produce of Nova Scotia to the markets of the United States and vice
versa. The ship, in reality, will be a continuation of the highway between Maine and Nova Scotia, along which will flow countless automobiles with passengers anxious to visit and admire the beauties of Nova Scotia and of the New England coast line.
I think that in fairness, Mr. Speaker, I should add that the hon. member for Digby-Yarmouth (Mr. Kirk) has been pressing me for a statement on this subject for the last two days. I have suggested to him that he not ask a question in the house concerning it because I hoped to be able to make a statement. I am sorry it was not possible to do so before this morning.


Mr. Balcom:: Will the minister permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I might say, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to be a source of great satisfaction- to the people of Nova Scotia-


Some hon. Members:: Order. Question.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: -and the Annapolis valley as well. When is it expected this ship will be put into operation, and is there going to be refrigeration accommodation?


Lionel Chevrier: The statement I have just made refers to the refrigeration which will be in the ship. It is expected to have it in operation some time in 1953.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: I presume that, in so far as possible, architects and engineers from Nova Scotia will be employed?


Lionel Chevrier: I must say that the plans are ready now.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 363, for the relief of Ann Martha Treglown Goodfellow.-Mr. Winkler.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, apparently there is grave concern among the strawberry growers on the lower mainland of British Columbia over the possibility of the importation of strawberries

Inquiries of the Ministry or strawberry pulp from Holland. Can the Minister of Agriculture give the house a statement on this question now or later today?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Cruickshank) as well as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra telephoned me about this matter and indicated that there was some discussion of the matter in British Columbia. I have made inquiries and I am told that there have been no imports of either frozen or SOo strawberries into Canada up to the present time so far as we can find out. I understand that the complaint is not that there has been importation into British Columbia but that British Columbia is not able to sell her berries to eastern manufacturers because of a suggestion that S02 or frozen berries may be coming from Holland to the eastern plants.
Up to the present time, so far as I can find out, there has been no such importation. I am making further inquiries as to the possibility of those berries coming in and I will make a further report later.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, on May 26 the house passed a motion for papers which stood in my name with regard to correspondence concerning the appointment of Mr. Currie. The papers have not yet been produced. I should not imagine that they are very complicated. No objection was taken to the motion. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence if he will look into the matter and have that return made at an early date.


Mr. J. A. Blanchette (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: The matter will be looked into, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. Earl Catherwood (Haldimand):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister state whether the meeting between the officials of the government of India and the Department of External Affairs on Canada's part in the Colombo plan for this year is concluded? If so, is the minister in a position to say what decisions were reached?


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: A preliminary meeting
IMr. Green.]

between representatives of the government departments here which are particularly interested in the Colombo plan and the High Commissioner for India has been held, but no conclusions were reached at that meeting. For one thing, no vote has as yet been passed for the Colombo plan for the year 1952-53. It is, however, hoped that we shall be having further meetings in order to go into this question in greater detail.


CANADIAN TROOPS ON KOJE ISLAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough West):: should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Garson) but in his absence I will direct it to the Prime Minister. Has the justice department or the government come to any decision as to whether the communist Endicott is to be prosecuted on account of his statement, made in Winnipeg on Wednesday evening, that Canadian soldiers helped the Americans needlessly slaughter communist prisoners on Koje island?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report of the statement made on Wednesday evening. Which Wednesday was it?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On Wednesday last. I will send the clipping over to the Prime Minister.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: That is Wednesday of this week. I should appreciate it if the hon. member would let me see the report of that statement. I shall be glad to refer it to the Department of Justice to see whether it constitutes anything different from what had already been considered as emanating from this Dr. Endicott.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: In the clipping it is mentioned that the justice department was trying to come to some decision. I just wondered if it had done so.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Department and missions abroad-
85. Departmental administration, $2,613,057.


The Chairman:: Hon. members will no doubt wish me to point out that these items had been earlier referred to the standing committee on external affairs and have been referred back to this committee after they were carefully considered in the standing committee on external affairs.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I believe the committee quite realizes that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs have been before the standing committee of the house. But as the external affairs department is one in which the whole country is interested as well as the whole world, and as things are changing from day to day, I just wondered whether the minister was going to make a statement at this time before we asked questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It had not been my intention to make anything like a general statement at this time. We have had two or three debates this session on external affairs. Only as recently as a few days ago we had an interesting and detailed discussion of European and NATO developments. If the committee agree, I would prefer to make any statement that is required on points that may be brought out in the course of our consideration of the estimates.


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the protest which this government sent a few weeks ago to the state department of the United States with regard to the transfer of one company of our 25th brigade to temporary guard duty on Koje island.
Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs advised the house that the government of the United States had accepted our protest. I believe that was the obvious thing for the government of the United States to do, because they had no alternative. They know perfectly well that a formal, publicized rejection of our protest would simply give the communist propaganda machine more material to use against us. In sending that protest I believe that we have already given them far too much of that kind of material.
I believe that the fact that the United States accepted our protest in no way excuses or justifies the great amount of publicity that attended the sending of that protest. If a government which has reached adult stature in the handling of external affairs wishes to send a protest to an allied government with regard to some matter, I believe that it does so in a quiet, restrained and unpublicized manner.
The only explanation which I can find for this tremendous amount of publicity is that the publicity machines in some of our departments of government are getting a little bit out of hand. First of all, we see the Department of National Health and Welfare flooding the country with pamphlets advertising the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Then in answer to that move we see the Department of External Affairs counter with
Supply-External Affairs headline publicity in which their minister is portrayed as the great white father who fights the battles of all Canadians outside of our shores.
It is going to be very interesting to see what the Department of Finance and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration are going to be able to do in order to further boost their ministers in the leadership race as it draws close to the line.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we have a look at the circumstances which have prompted this very unfortunate outburst on the part of our government. The circumstances are these: One company of our 25th brigade was sent by the United Nations commander to share in the police duties on Koje island. This was a temporary assignment, within the theatre of operations, and one which the United Nations commander was quite entitled to make.
His only obligation was first to get in touch with the commander of the British commonwealth division, under whose command our 25th brigade has been for some time, and request that the company should be sent. However, despite this fact, the government sent to the state department of the United States a protest which unfortunately received a great deal of headline publicity.
If this assignment was to have been a permanent one, or if our troops were to be sent outside the theatre of operations, then I believe this protest would have been justified, provided that the United Nations commander had not first received the permission of the Canadian government. However, to send a much publicized protest to the state department because of a temporary assignment, within the theatre of operations, and which was merely to do our share of the police duty necessary on Koje island, does, I feel, Mr. Chairman, make us look rather ridiculous in the eyes of our allies.
It has, I believe, shown a complete lack of understanding of the need of a field commander to feel free to assign troops under his command to normal duties, of a temporary nature, and within the theatre of operations.
I feel sure that during the last war there were many questions of allied policy on which Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill were not in complete agreement, but the public was never aware of these differences. These statesmen knew that nothing feeds the enemy propaganda machine quite so well as to publicize differences between allies, and so they resolved their differences privately.
In conclusion, I say that I sincerely hope this government will learn from these two great statesmen, and when it feels called

Supply-External Affairs upon to criticize the action of an allied government in the future, it will do so in a restrained, dignified and unpublicized manner.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think I had better just say a word about the hon. gentleman's statement. I am grateful to him for his advice on the conduct of diplomacy. As far as I am concerned, I will do my best to follow that very good advice in the future. But his implication that my statement in regard to this matter was made from a desire for publicity is just as unfounded as any statement of mine would be that he had made his statement because of a desire for publicity.


George Harris Hees: On a question of privilege, I should like to correct the minister. I at no time said that these statements were prompted by the minister, because I frankly do not think that he would prompt such statements. I think that in the departments we have built up publicity machines which sometimes get out of hand, and I think this is one instance when this publicity machine did get out of hand. I am not blaming the minister; I am blaming his publicity machine.


Mr. Sinclair:: We accept your apology.


George Harris Hees: It is no apology; just the minister's mistake.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I happen to be the minister of the department which possesses what has been called this publicity machine, which I think consists of a press officer. I am glad to take the responsibility for anything that is done by my department.
The matter that has been referred to need not I think be exaggerated. Our statement, which was made in this house-because when we have important statements to make on matters of direct concern to Canadian interests I think it is desirable to make them in the House of Commons-indicated that we had sent a note, which has been called a note of protest. In fact it was a note expressing our concern that a detachment of Canadian soldiers had been removed from the brigade for duty elsewhere in Korea in circumstances which we thought at that time were such as to make possible prior consultation with the government. But it will be recalled by the committee that in the note we made it quite clear that military considerations must govern these matters, and that in a case of military emergency no formation should expect to operate as a formation if it is necessary to break it up. That exception is understood by us, and I am sure by other governments with forces in Korea. However, when our brigade was sent to Korea its directive in

this matter was quite clear. That directive, which was sent to the brigade commander and also to the unified command, was to the effect that the principle of the separate entity of the Canadian forces should at all times be maintained. That is a principle which has been considered of importance to Canadian governments from the time of the first war, and it was laid down in regard to our operations in Korea.
It was considered proper at this time to call attention to that principle, of course always excepting military emergency. That was done. The United States government has expressed its appreciation and understanding of the importance of this principle for us, and at the same time has quite rightly emphasized the overriding importance of military considerations. I think that this exchange of correspondence between the two governments has served a useful purpose, and I do not think that the communists are going to be able to exploit it to any great extent.
As I indicated in my statement, we are happy to have our brigade in Korea take its full share of duty there as a unit of the United Nations forces. That is a principle by which we are also governed. But, subject always to military considerations, we feel it important to make quite clear that the directive which was given to the brigade at the time, namely, that a separate entity should be maintained, should be observed not only in Korea but wherever Canadian troops are serving, because we have learned from experience that that is the best way that Canadian soldiers operate in campaigns outside of Canada.


Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood):: I should like to add one word to what has been said. I agree fully with what the minister said about the importance of maintaining our control. The only suggestion I have to make to him -and here I agree with the hon. member for Broadview-is this: It seems to me this was an instance where he might have put the telescope to his blind eye, because it does seem to me it was a very small affair.
Secondly, and on a different point, it also seems to me that, as my colleague said, this surely might have been an instance where whatever communication was to be had might have been had in private. There must have been many instances of much vaster importance during the recent hostilities where leaders of governments did not always see eye to eye, but those differences were not made public, and the ordinary citizen did know of it.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Chairman, on at least tour occasions in recent weeks members of this group have asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs for a statement respecting the attitude of the Canadian government toward the activities of Syngman Rhee. On several, indeed if not on all those occasions, the reply of the minister was that he would prefer to wait until we reached the discussion of his estimates, at which time he would be prepared to make a statement in the matter.
I might remind him that the first time I put a question to him regarding this matter was prior to the occasion when several of the united nations associated in the effort in Korea, indicated their dissatisfaction with Syngman Rhee's disregard of democratic practices. We had hoped that Canada might take the lead in connection with the matter.
At any rate the whole question is very much in the news these days. Almost every day there is an item of significant importance in news broadcasts as to the way in which Syngman Rhee is trying to get rid of any political opposition in that country.
I should like to take a moment to read to the committee an extract or two from the Christian Science Monitor of June 18, 1952, in which the chief far eastern correspondent of that paper, Mr. Henry S. Hayward, sets out some of the background. He says:
The "communist conspiracy" which President Rhee charges is behind the current South Korean political tempest is largely fictitious.
The "conspiracy" was conjured up, in other words, to justify the president's action in declaring a state of martial law, in arresting a dozen members of the national assembly, and in seizing emergency political powers.
Mr. Hayward points out that this article is based largely upon an interview he had with Mr. Paul F. Douglass, who is in Korea as one of Mr. Rhee's top political advisers. Having pointed that out, the writer of the article goes on to say:
Claims that a communist conspiracy exists among members of the national assembly with whom Mr. Rhee is feuding, that the assemblymen have accepted bribes, and that an increase in guerrilla activity threatens South Korea's security-all these are trumped-up charges manufactured to disguise or justify the declaration of martial law, the arrest and intimidation of assemblymen, and the grasping of emergency powers that will permit Mr. Rhee to remain in command, Mr. Douglass explains.
Obviously my reason for reading a few sentences from the Christian Science Monitor is because of the reputation that paper has for objective reporting on matters of this kind. As my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East, my leader the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar and I have indicated on previous occasions, we feel that this is a matter of great concern to us. We knew when we went into the situation in Korea
Supply-External Affairs that we were not going to the defence of a well-organized and properly functioning democracy. We knew that we went in to take a stand against aggression. But I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs must agree with us that it is a pretty hard pill to swallow when we see that we would appear to be defending a regime that is engaging in such undemocratic processes, as is indicated in the news every day. I would hope that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would now be ready to state the views of the Canadian government in this matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is quite true that I did indicate on previous occasions that during the discussion of my estimates I would make known our view in the matter. I am glad now to be able to do so.
In the first place, as the hon. member who has just spoken has indicated, we must be clear in our own minds as to the basis of our original intervention in Korea. It was not for the purpose of supporting or removing any Korean government, whether that government was bad or whether it was good; rather it was to defeat aggression and to carry out our obligations as a member of the United Nations.
Although that has been the purpose of United Nations intervention, as a country participating in this collective operation we cannot refrain from indicating our interest in what goes on in Korea itself. We certainly have an interest in such developments, and for at least three reasons. In the first place, the political objective of the United Nations in Korea-and that, of course, is to be contrasted with the military objective-as stated in the United Nations resolutions is to establish in that country a free, united and democratic government.
Secondly, any division and disturbance, to say nothing of civil outbreaks behind the lines, endangers the military position. We must always keep that in mind. It would be an ironic tragedy indeed if United Nations forces in Korea, there to keep the aggressor out, should have to be used to keep the peace among those people whom we are attempting to assist.
Thirdly, we have an interest because, as a member of the United Nations, we are participating in the relief and rehabilitation of Korea itself. So these events, though they may seem to be domestic in a certain sense, are events which must arouse our interest and concern. And they have done that, as is already indicated by the questions asked in the house.
I think it is no exaggeration to say that these developments in South Korea have been unhappy and, in a sense, dangerous to the
3484	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs accomplishment of the United Nations objective there. The situation is not good from that point of view, and it does not seem to be improving-though constructive efforts are being made by United Nations agencies and by other governments to bring about a solution.
The present situation really dates from May 28 when martial law was declared in Pusan and in the area surrounding Pusan, and when certain members of the national assembly were arrested. We made inquiries about these events and, having satisfied ourselves as to what had actually happened, we addressed a communication to the Secretary General of the United Nations. For his part the Secretary General expressed his concern to the United Nations commission for the unification and rehabilitation of Korea in the following words:
I have been following with deep anxiety the difficulties that exist between the executive and legislative branches of the government of the Republic of Korea and I have constantly and strongly endorsed the efforts of the United Nations commission to co-operate with the government in ensuring conditions of political stability within the country.
Strict adherence to constitutional and democratic processes are all the more necessary in a country which must nurse and develop all of its resources to join members of the United Nations in repelling aggression and in promoting economic recovery. It is, of course, the responsibility of the Korean people and representatives to choose their own public servants but the United Nations, and especially those members providing assistance in Korea, cannot remain unconcerned when arbitrary methods are used which threaten to destroy the roots of democratic government. From the beginning of the United Nations responsibilities in Korea, there has been a paramount concern, expressed in every discussion on Korea in United Nations organs, that conditions should be created which would encourage the steady development of democratic, constitutional government.
And then he concluded his message by saying:
You-
That is, the United Nations commission for the unification and rehabilitation of Korea.
-have my continuing support in your efforts to assist the government in bringing the crisis to an end and in bringing the blessings of good government to the Korean people.
I should be grateful to have you bring this message to the attention of the president of the republic.
I understand that that was done. We also hoped that the United Nations commission might be successful in its intervention to settle the dispute between President Rhee and his assembly. Syngman Rhee, the head of the Korean government, is a great Korean patriot and indeed has been considered by his people, and I suppose rightly so, as the architect of their freedom. He commands great support in that country and he remains its outstanding personality. Indeed our


information is that there is no other comparable personality around which a strong government could rally. Therefore, it would be tragic if the end of the career of this great Korean patriot should be signalized by the destruction of democratic freedom and the rule of law in Korea.
We feel, and other governments which have expressed their concern feel, that if the Korean constitution has to be changed it should be done by lawful process and not by what has been termed, I believe, in the article which my hon. friend just read, a one-man revolution. I am sure that all hon. members will join me in hoping that the president of the Korean republic, who we all realize has held office in a period of great difficulty and cruel suffering by his people, will heed the friendly counsel that has been given and permit the normal processes of democratic government to be upheld in that country at a time when the menace from the north remains so great.
Neither Korea nor the United Nations can afford to have political disturbances behind the lines nor to permit the purpose of the United Nations or the safety of United Nations soldiers to be prejudiced by political intrigue and ambition.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Did the minister hear the radio broadcast this morning when it was stated that Syngman Rhee's supporters in the assembly had swung chairs at their opponents?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I did not hear that broadcast, but I suggest that that is one of the less dangerous manifestations.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Chairman, I think we all agree with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in what he has just said, but I think we should be clear about one thing in our minds. If a dictatorship is set up by Syngman Rhee or anyone else in Korea, that is a dictatorship outside of the communist dictatorship, then all that the United Nations have done in Korea in trying to protect South Korea will have been done in vain. No dictatorship could maintain South Korea against the communists because it would not have the support of the common people of South Korea. We realize that there was not a democratic government in Korea to begin with, but there was a nucleus of democracy. If Syngman Rhee is going to abolish all that and set up a dictatorship, the United Nations might as well move out' because everything we shall have done up to date will have been lost.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Is Syngman Rhee trying to have the council, or whatever you call it, elected by popular vote instead of by the

assembly as has been done in the past? He is trying to make it more democratic, is he not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not too sure of the details of the Korean situation, but I understand that the president of the republic is elected by the national assembly and not by direct suffrage. I believe that in the ordinary course the national assembly would be choosing a president some time in July and the president feels that it would be better to have the constitution changed so that at some subsequent time the president might be chosen by a direct vote of the people.


Mr. Mclvor:: Mr. Chairman, because of the sort of literature that has been coming to us and the press reports which have been published condemning the minister of external affairs, I think someone should stand up in this house and say that we are backing him to the limit in his work and plans for the peace of the world. It may be my nature to be impatient with these peace propagandists, but I think they should get after Russia because of the recent attacks made on Sweden and other places.
If the dominion government through the minister of external affairs had not supported the United States in stopping aggression in Korea, where would Korea be today? Where would Sweden be? Where would Norway be? Where would Finland be? Where would Denmark be? Where would we be later on? I know that the great Peacemaker says, blessed are the peacemakers, but He also said:
Neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
I have admired the outstanding patience of the minister and I hope he will just carry on cheerfully and thoroughly and be one of those ready to say to those who deserve it: So far shall you come and no further.


Mr. Blackmore:: Mr. Chairman, in view of the criticism which has been voiced about the minister's handling of the Koje matter, I desire to commend the minister upon his management of Canadian external affairs in connection with the situation relative to the United Nations actions concerning the use of Canadian forces when dealing with the Koje situation. I urge the minister to guard with utmost exactitude the sovereignty of Canada in all of his external contacts and relations.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take up with the minister a question which has been raised before concerning the safety of Canadians in China. This question in the main has revolved around the fate of Canadian missionaries in China. I want to make it perfectly clear that although my remarks will relate to the fate of Canadian missionaries, I am not concerned exclusively with
Supply-External Affairs missionaries or those of any one religious denomination, but with the fate of the comparatively large number-I use the words "large number" under the circumstances-of Canadians still in China.
I do not think it is necessary to rehearse at this time the discussion I had previously which was based on the statement made by the Prime Minister on April 21 as to the situation of some Canadian missionaries and sisters in Chinese prisons. On the basis of that statement it was suggested that the Prime Minister was minimizing the dangers and hardships they were undergoing. I have had correspondence with the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs on that point, and it certainly appears that every effort is being made, within the limits of current policy, first to find out exactly what the situation is, and then to do what can be done, again within the limits of current policy, to make certain that the treatment of Canadians is mitigated so far as possible. My remarks now are directed rather toward the limits of current policy.
The minister has consistently stated in discussing these matters that, because of the unpredictable nature of the communist regime in China, because it is not prone to have regard to what other governments say about it and to follow their advice, it has been his feeling and the feeling of his department that to criticize or make strong statements with respect to the treatment accorded to Canadians in China would probably do more harm than good and would prejudice the safety of Canadian nationals rather than improve their position. I think there is room for controversy regarding that policy quite apart from the question whether or not we have done all we can to look after our people over there. It is suggested that the policy of soft words and of extreme caution in discussing these matters which has been followed by the minister has, instead of assisting Canadian nationals in China, made their position worse because it has been taken by the communist government as an indication of weakness or lack of interest.
I know that you cannot make predictions as to how this peculiar form of ideology will react in the people who profess it. We cannot tell how they are going to react to anything we may say, but it certainly comes to mind that the communists believe in displays of toughness. They follow that policy themselves and I think we have seen through the communists' own methods in other situations that the only thing which the communists respect is strength. While I know we are not in a position to intervene actively in China, nevertheless it does occur to me that we might apply the same policy to our

Supply-External Affairs expressions of concern and our intentions with respect to looking after the welfare of our nationals in China. In this regard I was interested in an article appearing on page 3 of the May 31st issue of The Ensign. It is a dispatch from Hong Kong and reads as follows:
A clear call to the press of the west to "tell the world" of the bitter and cruel persecution of the Christian church and its missionaires in China has been issued here by the editorial board of the China Missionary Bulletin.
I am sorry that I have to confess that I am not absolutely certain of my facts but I believe that the China Missionary Bulletin is not a Catholic organ although it is referred to in The Ensign which is a Catholic paper. I believe I can say that it carries additional weight in the sense that it represents several denominations. The article continues:
"Conditions for the church and for humanity in China are so bad that the world must be told about them," the board declares. Although there must be "due regard for the well-being of the heroic bishops, priests and people there," nonetheless, "the sad and painful" story must be told. "Suppression of clearly confirmed news will not serve to lighten the burden of the priests and people there," the board writes. "But it will play into the very hands of the communist terrorists who consistently use fear as a trump card. This must be understood: the free world can no longer afford to be duped by the Red game. The tendency to hold back news for fear of reprisals must be re-examined and reevaluated," the board says pointing out that "Catholic missioners generally have not been prone to science. The differences between the world visions of communism and Christianity are so irreconcilable and the stakes are so high that there can be no minimizing of the horrors of communist terror. Remaining silent more often than not means falling victim to the communist game."
In the same issue on the same page there is also a report of an interview with two nuns who were imprisoned in China in which they themselves say that it is necessary and desirable that there should be the maximum publicity given to the maltreatment accorded to Canadian missionaries by the communist authorities in China. When you have the missionaries themselves, who it seems to me are the ones who know the conditions and who are the ones who would suffer if the policy should be wrong, saying that a policy of giving maximum publicity is not wrong, then I think we must consider very carefully whether we are following the right course in using cautious expressions and the gentle word, which has been the policy followed by the minister to date.
I do not want to do the minister an injustice and confuse two things. I believe that there must be caution in that what we say is based on fact. We must not make statements as to numbers or conditions when we do not know that those statements are absolutely accurate. However, I believe that

once the fact is established-and there have been several facts established with respect to persecution and ill treatment-then I believe the strongest of language and the strongest of condemnation is called for. It is that policy that I would ask the minister to review and to say whether he does not feel that the time has now arrived for the strongest possible condemnation of the maltreatment which these Canadians have been receiving in China, not just because they are missionaries but because they are Canadian nationals and are engaged in works of charity and mercy.


Mr. Browne (Si. John's West):: Before the minister replies, I should like to draw his attention to one feature of the same subject. What co-operation exists between the Canadian government and the United States government which is also interested and which is responsible for many United States nationals who are in that country? During the past week I had a letter from the Passionist organization. Bishop O'Gara of Ottawa is the head of that organization in China. Together with five other Passionist fathers he has been under house arrest for the last two years. When the minister is replying will he tell us what the existing policy is with regard to co-operation with the United States in this respect?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on this important matter, and I might deal first with the points that have been made last. I would say that we have maintained close co-operation with the United States in respect of the nationals of both our countries who are in China. We exchange information and views as to what can most effectively be done. We are both in the same position in the sense that neither government has any representation in China. As I recall, the last intervention that was made was made on behalf of the United States and Canada by the United Kingdom representative in Peking.
In so far as the remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops are concerned, I do not admit that we have indulged in soft words as the best means of assisting Canadians in China. If the hon. gentleman will read some of the statements that have been made in the house I think he will find some words which could hardly be considered as soft because the treatment that has been meted out to certain Canadians in China and to other westerners would not deserve soft words in describing it. It has been brutal treatment. It is bad enough, however, without exaggerating it, and that brutal treatment has not been applied to all Canadians..

It has been suggested outside the house in journalistic quarters that we have intervened too weakly and, I believe, that we have only intervened recently. The fact is we have intervened a good many times through the channels which are open to us. We have intervened in more than one way, not merely through the United Kingdom representative in Peking, though I am not in a position for obvious reasons to make public all the machinery that we have used in this matter. It has been suggested that we should have been stronger in our intervention and stronger in our denunciations and protests. The hon. member for Kamloops has indicated that communists are only impressed by a display of force. I agree with that, but I should add that my experience is that they have never been very much impressed by displays of verbal force alone. They carefully examine the material force which is behind the words you use. If you have not got ways and means of carrying out your statements, then they will not be impressed by them.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I was speaking of the force of the statement, and not of any threat behind the statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the interventions and statements we have made, we have acted on the best advice we could obtain from our own experts and from other governments which were helping us, as to the manner of protest most effectively designed to help those we were trying to help. In the notes that we have sent, and in the statements we have made, the language we have used has been at least as strong as that used by other governments in the representations they have made.
In the letter which I wrote the hon. member for Kamloops dated May 9, and which I think has been made public, I concluded with the following words:
You will agree, I am sure, that our primary concern in this matter must be for the safety and wellbeing of the more than one hundred Canadians still in China. From the outset of the troubles in that country, this has, in my opinion, made it desirable to keep statements upon as realistic and factual a basis as possible. These unfortunate people are exposed in a position where no one can help them if the communist authorities choose to ill-treat them. Therefore the utmost circumspection in public discussion is obviously desirable, and more restraint has to be shown than our feelings in the matter would dictate.
In this same letter to the hon. member I attempted to remove any impression that the Prime Minister's earlier statement might have left that we were a little cool to some
Supply-External Affairs of the mistreatment to which Canadians had been subjected. I included the following words:
It is not easy to measure degrees of maltreatment. When the Prime Minister used the words "Canadians had not in general been physically maltreated," he was thinking of torture or anything causing bodily harm or permanent disability and he gave, I think, an accurate picture of the situation of the great majority of Canadians in China. However, I am well aware that the three Sisters of the Immaculate Conception who reached Hong Kong two months ago were subjected, if not to physical maltreatment, to the most degrading ordeals during and after their "trial." They were paraded through the streets where the mob was encouraged to spit upon them and to pelt them with filth. Others have suffered similar experiences. We understand that they have borne up well despite the hardships they have undergone, and it is thought, certainly it is hoped, that they will suffer no serious aftereffects.
For obvious reasons, Mr. Chairman, we can never be absolutely certain of our information, but the factual situation in regard to the number of Canadians remaining in China seems to be as follows: On March 12, there were 168 Canadians still in China. On June 9, there were 121, so during the previous three months some had been able to get out. Of those 121, 40 are Catholic nuns; 39 are Catholic priests; 6 are Protestant missionaries with 1 dependent; 6 are non-Asiatic Canadians and 29 are Chinese Canadians. It is reported that of this number still in China, 7 are in prison, 4 sisters and 3 priests; 15 are under house arrest, 3 sisters and 12 priests. During the last few months 9 Canadians who had been in prison have arrived at Hong Kong, 3 sisters, 2 Protestant missionaries and 4 priests.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would that include the 4 who were sent out of China from the labour camp, and who arrived yesterday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not sure, but I do not think so because this information antedates that news as it appeared in the press.
As regards the general situation in China, the attitude of the Chinese communist authorities to Canadians, and the kind of life that Canadians have been living in China and the treatment they have received, I cannot do any better than to commend to hon. gentlemen as an antidote to the vapourings and ravings of Dr. Endicott on this situation of paradise which he has found in China, a very restrained report, which is all the more impressive because it is restrained in sense and in language, written by a missionary who has an abiding love and understanding of the Chinese people because he has been there many years. This report is by Dr. Kilborn, a medical missionary, and it has been circulated within the last few days by the board of overseas missions of the United Church of

Supply-External Affairs Canada. I have read no more impressive report of conditions in China, and no more damning indictment of the reason for the deterioration of those conditions and of the attitude of the Chinese communists towards westerners.


Mr. Drew:: We have had several answers which have explained the position of the government in regard to specific points, Mr. Chairman, which have been raised this morning. But it is in regard to the wider implications of this discussion that I should like to address my remarks. At the very outset I wish to suggest that we ought to ask ourselves what it is we really are discussing on this lovely June morning. What is it that is before the house at this time?
This is the first item in the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. It is the first opportunity that has been presented for several weeks-in fact, one might say two or three months-for a general discussion of external affairs. For that reason I believe we should ask ourselves exactly what it is that is before us. We are discussing survival. We are discussing our survival as a free nation, and the survival of western civilization; that is what we are discussing. Yet, we have an atmosphere of almost complete unreality in dealing with survival itself.
It is true that the first item of the estimates deals with the financial problems of the department, but it is the basis of a general debate. Events have occurred that have profoundly affected the position of this country and of the free world. The attention of the minister was drawn to something that he has done. It was pointed out that in the opinion of one hon. member it had not been wise to seize on this opportunity to publicly announce criticism of the course followed by the United States army in its direction of military affairs in Korea. I do not think the opening words of the reply of the Secretary of State for External Affairs should be passed over without comment. In reply to something which certainly should have been raised in this chamber, because it is something that has been commented upon generally in the press throughout Canada, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in commenting upon the statement made by the hon. member for Broadview, said, "I am grateful to him for his advice on diplomacy." No hon. member sitting in this committee was unaware of the sarcasm behind that remark. That sarcasm was recognized by the laughter on the other side of the chamber which greeted his statement.
I wish to refer to that comment for this reason. Any attempt that has been made by the members of this party to present a unified

front in principle on every possible occasion, so that no comfort could be taken by Russia or any other possible enemy in any evidence of disunity with regard to matters of basic principle, should not, I hope, be taken by the government as an admission that we are to be treated like children and are to be admonished any time we point out to the government things that we think should be corrected.
After all, truth is largely the result of open and free controversy. The very purpose of freedom of speech and freedom of exchange of ideas by every means of communication now open to us is not merely that people may have the pleasure of speech but that truth may result from the exchange of discussion and the exchange of ideas which take place in that way. When it comes to questions of principle, we want to be sure that, wherever it is possible, there be unity and agreement without regard to party affiliation so that it may be known that Canada stands united in every effective step that may be taken for the defence of freedom and of our civilization.
But we must examine what it was that the minister regarded as something which it was almost an affront to mention. The handling of a single infantry company was the occasion for headlines in relation to something that could easily have been dealt with by a private exchange of correspondence or by a telephone call. Whether the intention was what has been suggested by some editorials or whether it was not, the fact remains that this protest was regarded by responsible publications in the United States as something which was hardly in keeping with the relationship between Canada and the United States.
It should not at any time be suggested that we take our directions from comments in the United States. Nevertheless, at a time when we are seeking to strengthen the great partnership of the free nations of the western world, we must not ignore the effect of statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, by the Prime Minister or by any other member of the government which speaks for the whole of Canada in international affairs. For that reason I would point out that this is not a case of someone presuming to come into this chamber and advise the minister on diplomacy. Even though the minister may not think that it is for him to take advice of that kind, I would point out that others have expressed their comments on this matter. For instance, a responsible publication in the capital of the United States, namely the Washington Post, referred to the note so much publicized by the

Secretary of State for External Affairs as a silly note. It went further; and I quote from what was said in an editorial in the Washington Post in relation to this statement:
Actually the Canadian protest to the United States about dispatch of Canadian troops to Koje without prior approval from Ottawa was more than a trifle silly.
The request reportedly was cleared with the British commonwealth commander in Korea who seemingly neglected to inform Ottawa. It would be ridiculous, of course, if a field commander had to seek government approval for every tactical disposition of troops. Either Canadian troops are part of a U.N. army or they are not. If they are. then the principle of international command must apply just as it applies to other troops in Korea.
That is the end of the quotation that I propose to read from that editorial. I mention this editorial which expressed sentiments similar to those which appeared elsewhere in the United States. I think that we as a nation must be extremely careful, and that the government which expresses the voice of Canada on behalf of all of us in international affairs must be extremely careful-and I think it is our duty to say that they must be careful-when they are dealing with something in relation to military activity in an area in which such an overwhelming preponderance of the responsibility for success rests in the hands of the government of the United States and the military commanders of the United States.
We are proud-and justifiably so-of the manner in which young Canadians have on this occasion carried forward the great traditions of this country, as they have done whenever we have been called upon as a people to assume our military responsibilities. The fact remains, however, that the overwhelming burden is being borne by the people of the United States. We must be extremely careful that we do not suggest to them that we are unconscious of the burden they are carrying or the sacrifices they are making. I also think that we should be extremely careful that we do not at any time say things which would in any way interfere with this great friendship of ours.
The only reason that I have raised this matter at this time is that when this point was raised this morning, the Secretary of State for External Affairs brushed it off as though it was almost an affront that it was raised here. I suggest that the House of Commons and the people of Canada who are behind Canadian efforts to build up the combined strength of the nations of the western world would have welcomed some indication by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he himself thought the protest was a little bit silly and that we are not going to see any repetition of incidents of that kind.
Supply-External Affairs
We are now coming to the close of another session, and what is happening at this time is just exactly what we predicted would happen toward the close of this session. It will be recalled that at the very beginning of this session, on a number of occasions, we urged that the government place before the house the business with which we would be called upon to deal in a manner that would give us a continuing sense of reality, the opportunity for early debate and for the presentation of arguments which not only could impress themselves upon the members of the house but also convey to the people of Canada-through the press, the radio and otherwise-information with regard to the subjects which were before those who have been sent here as their elected representatives to do the business of Canada. At the time those suggestions were made, they were treated with scorn by the government. In fact, the attitude taken was that we were being rather presumptuous in telling the government what it should do about the business of the house.
Here we find ourselves with several important committees still meeting, which draw members from this chamber. We find ourselves with the estimates of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence still to be dealt with, as well as other important departments. All this has helped to create the atmosphere of unreality in which this present debate is now projected. It has been the result either of planned frustration or of complete failure by the government to understand how the business of this house can be carried forward in an orderly and efficient manner. It is one or the other. Hon. members are left to guess until the last minutes of the session at night what they are going to deal with the following day. Debates cannot be planned. Important measures are brought forward at the last moment.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the leader of the opposition. It seems to me that he has now embarked upon what might be termed the general conduct of the business of the house, and it does not relate to the debate on external affairs, no matter how wide the debate may be on this first item. I would therefore ask him to come back to the subject of external affairs.


George Alexander Drew: I was pointing out the reason for the atmosphere of unreality which must be apparent to every member who is sitting in this house, and I said all that I propose to say in regard to the incompetence and the planned frustration which have resulted in this situation.

Supply-External Affairs
Today we have reason for hope, and great reason for hope, that the growing strength of the western allies is going to fulfil the hopes and dreams of those who have supported the principles that have been put forward on behalf of Canada by this government. But there is no reason to treat this situation lightly. Too often subjects of the most far-reaching consequence have been dealt with in a casual manner, which has helped to convey to the people of Canada the impression that there is not that measure of urgency which I believe should be in the mind of every Canadian at this time. I would recall merely as an example, that when a situation arose in Berlin a short time ago which easily could have provided the spark that would have ignited all the combustible material that has been built up in that area, the Secretary of State for External Affairs summed up the situation in these words:
There will undoubtedly be fireworks, but there is no reason for panic over the giant crackers or for relief over the rockets that burst in the form of a dove.
Words of that kind may possibly be useful on occasion. Apt expressions often are more useful than extended arguments in illustrating a point. I do suggest, however, that the gravity of the present situation is such that on every occasion when the events of the moment are described by the Secretary of State for External Affairs he should use words which will leave no doubt in the minds of the public that these are not fireworks, but that we are confronted with the most critical situation that has ever confronted free nations except in time of general war.
It is even possible that never before have we been confronted with as critical a situation as today, because if we lose this struggle we lose freedom not only for years but for generations.
So that we may get this subject in its proper perspective I should like to quote from a book which has just been published by Drew Middleton, the head of the New York Times European bureau, under the title "Defence of Western Europe". I do so because he is generally regarded as one of the most competent observers of international affairs. He has written this book as a result of interviews with officers and civilians who have escaped from behind the iron curtain. He has written it as a result of confidential discussion with men of the highest authority. For that very reason it is one of the very significant books of this year, and perhaps of many years. I should like to quote from this very recent and very important book, pointing out that we are now in the most vital period of this cold war, which can become a hot war at any time.


He points out that we are at the same stage in relation to Russian preparation that we were in relation to German preparation two years before the outbreak of the last war. He points out that the production of Soviet Russia and its satellites is rapidly mounting to a crescendo, and that within two years it will have reached its peak. For that very reason, if Russia contemplates war, 1954 is the target year for any efforts that we should be making.
He does not approach this subject with the thought that war is inevitable. On the contrary, what he is trying to do with all the vigour, with all the earnestness and with all the sense of reality of one of the really great war correspondents and military observers of modern times, is to point out to the people of the free world, while there is yet time, that we are not going to coast by any easy route into the distant lands of promised peace; but that if we are going to have the kind of peace that we want we are going to pay for it in effort and in money.
What he seeks to point out by the most earnest argument is that we must put forward every effort with a sense of the utmost urgency; that there can be no easy course, and that we are certainly going to feel the strain of our effort if that effort is to be successful. In a nutshell, what he tells us is to remember that those who have examined the records tell us today that if only the free world had displayed such unity in 1939 they could have prevented the war even with all the German preparations. The question is whether, with that evidence so recently before our eyes, we are going to prevent another war, when preparations on an immensely greater scale are taking place within exactly the same pattern today.
Then he refers to the statements of General Mast, the great French general. We may well listen to what he says about General Mast's observations, just as we might wish today that we had listened to the advice of General de Gaulle in the days before the last world war. The French army's collapse in 1940 was certainly not the fault of that officer of great foresight and great vision who predicted the manner in which any armoured threat might be met and might be overcome. He made his predictions in words that unfortunately were picked up and copied by General Guderian and other German armoured commanders for the purpose of organizing their forces in a manner that brought such dramatic and terrible success. I refer to that because perhaps the very fact that General Mast is no longer an active member of the French general staff may incline some to forget the importance that is attached by many people to the views that he has put forward. I quote now

from Drew Middleton's book, and shall continue to quote until I indicate that the quotation is ended:
The first point made by General Mast is that although our present concepts of Soviet power are based on the peacetime strength of the Russian military, naval and air services, we should be confronted, after a partial mobilization, with 250 divisions of ground troops, 20,000-30,000 aircraft and more than 300 submarines. After three months of full mobilization there would be 350 divisions; this figure would rise to 500 divisions by the end of the first year of war.
This is the basis, General Mast points out, on which the West must make its calculations if it wishes to avoid, in an infinitely more important arena, the underestimates made at the beginning of the Korean war.
I am still quoting from Drew Middleton's book where he refers to General Mast's book:
Although this book is concerned principally with Europe and its defences, it is worth quoting General Mast's appreciation of the direction of the Soviet attacks in time of war. He lists them as:
1.	A naval, air and ground attack in the Arctic aimed at the capture of Alaska and Iceland.
2.	An air-ground attack in the Middle East aimed at the occupation of Persia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the isthmus of Suez.
3.	An air-ground attack on western Europe and North Africa aimed at the conquest of all Europe and the elimination of western military power from the entire North African shore of the Mediterranean.
4.	A harassing action in East Asia (Korea and Japan) accompanied by indirect action, carried out by China, in southeast Asia.
5.	World-wide naval action by submarines against the seaborne transport of the anti-Soviet coalition.
It is General Mast's contention that the Soviet union will be capable of undertaking all these operations simultaneously. He divides the forces allotted to these operations as follows:
Alaska and Iceland, 3 to 6 divisions and 1,500 aircraft;
The Middle East, 40 to 60 divisions and 5,000 aircraft;
The Far East, 20 Soviet divisions and 5,000 aircraft, plus Chinese reinforcements.
For the European theatre of operations, General Mast divides the effort in this way:
Scandinavia, 15 to 17 divisions and 1,000 aircraft;
Western Europe, 120 divisions, initially, gradually increased to 180-190 divisions plus 10,000 aircraft;
The Balkans, 35 divisions plus 1,500 aircraft plus the armies of the satellite states. These latter we will discuss in detail later.
Thus a general officer of the highest professional qualifications. The numbers seem like figures in a nightmare, rising and falling before one's eyes. Yet they represent the capacity of the great power complex with which we are now faced.
That is the end of the quotation from Drew Middleton's book that I propose to put on the record. These are Drew Middleton's words: "The numbers seem like figures in a nightmare, rising and falling before one's eyes". Yes, they are a nightmare. Those in this chamber who saw the effect of military superiority when it was directed by the German general staff from 1914 to 1918 and again from 1939 to 1945 know what military superiority at the outset of any war really means. They know the terror; they know the
Supply-External Affairs anguish; they know the horror of trying to build defence forces under pressure of that kind, of trying to meet the threat of superiority of that nature, which constantly approaches nearer to complete and utter victory.
Right across this country today there is a challenge to those who have seen what that kind of thing means, a challenge to create in the minds of our people-and there is a similar challenge in other free nations to create in the minds of their people-a sense of urgency and a sense of reality in the face of nightmare figures of that kind.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, and with such truth, that Russia is never very much impressed by verbal force. He told us just a short time ago that they examine what real force lies behind the statements that are made. I am suggesting that the statements that are made here at this time, statements that are made with that nightmare reality before us and with other balancing considerations before us, must be assessed with a full recognition of what it is we are trying to do, and the purpose towards which the combined efforts of the free nations are directed, both in the Atlantic and the Pacific areas at the present time.
One hon. member said a short time ago that we should say to Russia, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." By all means, let us say that. But with what? If the Secretary of State for External Affairs is correct in his analysis of the Russian position, then, unless we are resting entirely upon our confidence in the atomic bomb, let us assess quite carefully what it is we are hoping to do to meet figures of the kind I have just put forward.
What I wish to emphasize particularly is that the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence do go hand in hand in preparing for the defence of freedom of the Canadian people at this time. It is the function of the Department of External Affairs to make the international arrangements and to assist in creating the pattern within which our military contribution forms part of the great international framework devoted to the hope of peace and security.
We all recognize that with a population of 14 million people, as compared with the 160 million in the United States, the more than 50 million in Great Britain, the nearly 50 million in France, the more than 50 million in Italy, and all the other millions in the other free nations of western Europe, we are of course only a part, and perhaps a relatively small part, in that great team which is now building its strength for the defence of

Supply-External Affairs ail the free nations which are confronted with the threat represented by the figures I have just placed on record.
We certainly will support what is done in that respect. But to give reality to the enormous sums which will soon be asked from this House of Commons for purposes of national defence, it is important that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in a much clearer manner than has yet been done, should put before the house exactly the pattern into which this military contribution is going to fit.
On earlier occasions members of this party have put forward the contention that we should be re-examining our military organizations, that we should be remembering that military logistics suggest that our effort should be directed to the building up of the most compact, hard-hitting and mobile forces in view of the fact that, of necessity, in any combined effort, they will likely be moved far from the shores of Canada to keep any threat away from us.
The possibility of having a discussion in regard to that subject in terms of complete reality would suggest the advisability of our knowing much more than we now know of what was really discussed at Lisbon, what was discussed earlier here in Ottawa and what was discussed elsewhere, so that we may not simply have the bland assurance that what we are doing meets with the approval of the NATO organization. Rather we want to know what the real plan is and be ready to support it and contribute our part to that plan consistent with the best possible use of the industrial and other opportunities that we do possess.
In saying this I wish to place before the committee at this time the suggestion that we remember the vital importance of Europe to Canada, to the United States and to the free world, not merely as the home from which our civilization sprang but rather as to what it means today in the contribution it could make to the combined strength of the free world. It is not just the great historic territory west of the iron curtain; it is not just the area in which our culture found its expression before it came to this continent; it is not just the area where 200 million vigorous, educated and cultured people live and are bound to live in the future.
Let us think of what it means to the balance of military power if under any circumstances, either by military aggression or by political action, western Europe, the cradle of our civilization, came under the domination of the Kremlin. Think of what it would mean in terms of the great gun plants, of the great armament factories, of


the aircraft factories and of the naval bases. Think of what it would mean if all that production were under integrated control. Think of what it would mean if throughout the whole of Europe, from which modern industry emerged, they were pouring out guns, tanks, aircrafts, machines of war as well as ships and the other military requirements of world power.
Let us remember, simply as an example, what the occupation of Poland, of Czechoslovakia, and of East Germany has meant to Russia where they have been able to take over the Bergenhutton steel plant of Poland, the Skoda plant at Pilsen and the great gun and armament plants of East Germany. The reason our troops and the troops of the United Nations are undergoing such difficulties in Korea today, the main reason perhaps why the communists may well be planning the delays that are now taking place, is that the highly developed industrial and military skill of East Germany, Czechoslovakia and southern Poland are now under the most dreadful compulsion to work for the Soviet empire.
Think of what it would mean if all the great gun plants of the whole of Germany, of France, of Italy, of Belgium, of Holland, yes and of Britain as well, were under unified control. Think of what it would mean if all those plants were producing aircraft to a single design. Think of what it would mean if they were producing submarine parts in all countries of Europe to be assembled at the naval bases in the Baltic, on the Atlantic coast and in the Mediterranean.
This is not a distant possibility; this is an immediate possibility unless the plans we are making bear fruit and preserve us from the threat that is constantly before our eyes. The Schuman plan for the unification of steel production in Europe has not yet reached fulfilment but it would become a dreadful reality under the most terrifying form of integration. Think of what that would achieve under the awful compulsion by which they would employ the brains to direct those operations.
I have reviewed these possibilities simply to suggest that we get back to reality. We are not discussing ordinary administrative problems of government, we are discussing nothing less than the survival of our civilization. Canada will never stand alone. Canada has indicated, and the government has expressed, that opinion with the full and unqualified support of the members of this house. But there has been plenty of evidence that the people of Canada have not found in the statements made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or in the interpretation

of our position by this government that sense of urgency and reality which conveys to their minds the necessity for the amount of cooperation which will prevent a third world war.
Whatever differences of opinion there may have been, and some of those differences have been expressed in recent days, whatever may have been said this morning about our desire for a more dignified and more co-operative point of view on Canada's part which recognizes our place on this great team of free nations, it is with our eyes on the future and the understanding of all that another world war would mean that I urge with all the sense of urgency I can express that we keep in mind what Canada has suffered already in two world wars and realize how much more terrible a third world war would be.
I am simply urging that in our discussion of the affairs of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of National Defence we keep before our eyes at all times the fact that nothing less than the most effective use of the great strength of the free nations will prevent another world war and keep that peace which is our one and only purpose.
There are many people in Canada today whose relatives live beyond the iron curtain. They ask themselves what hope there is of being reunited eventually, within their own lives, with those they left in the lands where they were born.
Today in this country people of German stock whose relatives are now in Eastern Germany, people of Polish stock, of Hungarian, Bulgarian, Roumanian, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Ukrainian and Chinese stocks, yes, of Russian stock as well, are all asking whether the present division of this old world of ours is permanent or whether the efforts that we are making to prevent war and preserve peace is something that offers some hope, in the years ahead, of their being able to rejoin their relatives, meet them again and establish those contacts that decent human beings all wish to maintain. In the plans that we are making today I think we should offer hope not only that these plans contemplate a static peace but also that in due course the strength of our position may offer the opportunity to all nations to determine their own form of government and the way they will live as they were promised in the charter of the United Nations when it was signed in San Francisco in the spring of 1945.
This surely is a hope that will give new spirit, encouragement and faith to many people today who are constantly suffering the anguish of complete separation from those who are so dear to them. In that regard I
Supply-External Affairs think we should remember that for long years in the past there have been great associations of nations which maintained peace by the strength of their defences. Then in the course of years there were improvements in the relations between those nations, and ultimately they came closer and closer together. In the early days of the present century we came very close to establishing the kind of world in which there would be a constant freedom of movement, in which people could not only exchange ideas but also move freely from land to land. It is difficult for us to realize today that in the early days of the present century it was possible for a person to move around this world of ours without a passport, and that it was even possible for people to move with almost complete freedom in Russia itself when they visited that country.
That is a kind of world we have almost forgotten but that was a kind of world which emerged, with all its weaknesses and all its faults, at a time when the combined strength of free nations preserved peace against the threat of aggression. I would hope that we may not only look to a static peace in which there will be great armed camps on one side of the iron curtain and great armed camps on the other side but that we may also look forward to the day, distant though it may be, when in God's good time the fortitude, understanding of their purpose and the combined strength of the free nations will not only offer the hope of peace and security to us but will bring to those nations now in slavery the promised peace and freedom which they were assured by the charter of the United Nations.
It is with that dream, it is with that hope of a day when even the people of Russia may find that freedom which they have so richly earned by their own sacrifices in time of war, that I urge that we cast our eyes toward the very real world in which we live at this time, and that we discuss all these problems in terms of cold reality. At times when one hears some of the exchanges that take place, when one hears explanations that seem to have so little regard for the fantastic figures of the military might to which we are opposed, it almost seems as though the one thing that would do any good would be for all men to go out and shout at the top of their lungs, through megaphones amplified by every loud speaking device that would give their voices strength: "For the love of all that is dear and sacred to the people of Canada today, wake up!"


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I think at least the earlier remarks of the hon. gentleman deserve some comment from me, and

Supply-External Affairs for the next minute or two I propose to make that comment. He indicated that when this discussion began and the question of the dispatch of a Canadian contingent to Koje was raised by the hon. member for Broadview, my opening observations on that subject gave the impression of sarcasm, and that I was merely interested in brushing off what the hon. member for Broadview said as an affront. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that when he mentioned my opening words he should also have mentioned the opening words of the hon. member who preceded me and who in those words stated that this action of the Canadian government in defence of a principle to which it is committed, and to which I think the Canadian people are committed, was inspired by a publicity machine. If those remarks had not been made by the hon. member for Broadview, possibly my opening remarks might not have been made in the same tone as they were. That, I think, sufficiently explains the way this subject was introduced by me.
The leader of the opposition indicated that we on this side will not accept either advice or criticism on such an important matter as foreign affairs. I assure him-and I do not need to assure the committee-that the government on this particular subject, as on other subjects, is always very glad indeed to accept criticism and advice. We have no illusions of either omniscience or infallibility. The Koje matter arose-and I do not wish to labour the point-because of a principle to which we attach importance, and we declared our support of that principle and our understanding of its importance by a statement in the house. The hon. gentleman has stated, and I have no quarrel with him in the statement, that it has caused a great deal of attention, especially in the United States. He has read from an estimable and highly regarded United States newspaper, the Washington Post, which described our intervention on this occasion as a silly note. I submit that the Washington Post rather misunderstood the Canadian position, but if the hon. gentleman wishes to associate himself with that description of our intervention to protect the entity of the Canadian brigade in circumstances which were not governed by military considerations I have no quarrel with him.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman,-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: On a question of privilege, I am not going to allow that kind of remark to stand unchallenged. I did not associate myself with that statement, and the Hansard record will make quite clear the way in

which I introduced that remark. I would suggest that an observation of that kind is exactly the kind of observation that carries this debate away from the level that should be maintained. Mr. Chairman, it is one o'clock and I suggest that we rise.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Before we rise, in reply to the question of privilege, I suggest if the hon. gentleman does not associate himself with the statement of the Washington Post then that is quite satisfactory to me. All I know is that he read it with apparent approval.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


George Harris Hees: I should like to refer back briefly, Mr. Chairman, to a discussion we had this morning on the Koje incident. I am trying to satisfy myself about this question of the timing of the protest which was sent to the United States government. In a moment I shall ask the minister to answer one or two questions.
On May 26 the minister made a statement in the house, as recorded at page 2552 of Hansard for that day. He said:
The government feels that it is essential that the Canadian policy in respect of the breaking up of the Canadian brigade for miscellaneous duties in Korea should be made clear. A note has accordingly been presented to the state department in Washington.
From that, one would assume that a formal diplomatic note had been sent off by the time the minister spoke in the house at three o'clock in the afternoon. However, two days later there is a United Press dispatch from Washington which reads as follows:
The state department said today that it sympathizes with Canada's objections to the assignment of Canadian troops to the Koje island prison camp. However, department spokesman Mr. Michael J. McDermott said that it has not given Canada any formal assurances pending the arrival of a formal diplomatic note.
On the afternoon of May 28, as recorded at page 2659 of Hansard for that day, the hon. member for Peel asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs the following question:
May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not he has found out what has caused the delay in the mails between Ottawa and Washington with respect to some of his recent correspondence with the United States government?
The minister replied as follows:
As far as I know there has been no delay whatever in this matter. I assume the hon. member is referring to the statement which I made on Monday. That statement was in the hands of the United States state department in Washington, and indeed in the hands of the United States embassy in Ottawa, before it was given to the house.

You will notice that the minister mentions a "statement" but not a note. Later on that same day we had another United Press dispatch from Washington which was filed at ten o'clock at night and which says:
Canada sent a formal note to the United States today, demanding that it be consulted on any future decisions to split up units of Canadian forces serving in Korea.
As I understand it, and the minister will correct me if I am wrong, there is a difference between a formal diplomatic note and a statement. As I understand it, a statement is a sort of memorandum, sent between one government and another, and which requires no answer. A formal diplomatic note is a formal message between two governments that requires an answer.
From the news dispatches I have read, and the statements in the house, I am led to believe that, although the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a statement to the house on Monday, May 26, a formal diplomatic note was not received by the state department in Washington until forty-eight hours later. Perhaps a statement might have been received, but not the formal diplomatic note which was required. Can the minister clarify that situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I think I can clear up the point that is troubling the hon. member. The timing of those events to which he has referred is as follows: Before the statement which I gave to the house upon the Koje matter was made on May 26 our ambassador in Washington had left a copy of that statement with the state department. In diplomatic parlance, I suppose it would have been called an oral note-a note of the statement that I was to make that afternoon in the House of Commons in Ottawa. A copy of that statement was handed also to a representative of the United States embassy in Ottawa. It is, therefore, strictly accurate to say-no matter what press reports may have stated to the contrary-that the statement which was made in the House of Commons in Ottawa was made after its contents had been conveyed to the United States government through the state department and through the United States embassy in Ottawa.
When the state department received this oral note from the ambassador they said that if a formal reply were desired it would be preferable to resubmit the oral note in the form of a formal diplomatic note. That was done the next day, and a formal reply was received the day before yesterday. The actual terms of the statement, in the form of an oral note delivered by the ambassador to the state department and by this department to the United States embassy here, were in the
Supply-External Affairs possession of the United States government before the statement was made.


George Harris Hees: Would it not have been desirable to send off a diplomatic note at the same time as the statement was made in this house, especially in dealing with a touchy matter such as this? Does the minister not consider that might have been a desirable thing to do?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might have been. It could have been done that way. I am not suggesting that the exact procedure adopted was the best one; that is a matter of opinion. We thought that in doing it in the less formal way, as we did originally, we would deal with this matter in Washington on a less formal diplomatic basis and obtain the assurances we thought we had a right to request from the United States. They felt that if we wanted these assurances the first note should be resubmitted as a formal diplomatic note so that we would get a formal diplomatic reply, and that was done.


George Harris Hees: I believe that the move the minister decided upon in the first place would have been very satisfactory, if it had not been accompanied by the very undesirable headline publicity. That was what bothered the state department.
While speaking this morning in reference to my remarks, the minister spoke as though the government were the only body interested in maintaining the unity of the Canadian forces serving overseas. I should like to refer to my remarks this morning when I said, "if this assignment were to be a permanent one, or if our troops were to be sent outside the theatre of operations, then the protest would have been justified, provided the United Nations commander did not first receive the permission of the Canadian government." In other words, if our forces were to be broken up for anything but a very temporary assignment, or if they were to be sent outside the theatre of operations, of course the Canadian government should be notified, and permission received.
However, I went on to say that, in my opinion, if the duty were a temporary assignment, within the theatre of operations, merely to do our share of the routine chores, then I thought it was almost ridiculous to expect the United Nations commander to follow that same procedure with all sixteen governments who have troops serving under him in the Korean theatre. If he wanted someone for guard duty, or almost any kind of routine duty, it seems to me almost ridiculous that the United Nations commander should have to take the time and trouble to obtain the permission from Canada or Turkey or any of the other countries that have troops serving

Supply-External Affairs in the area before assigning troops to that work. If the commander desired to assign troops to some permanent detail, where they are going to be some months away from their mother formation, or if they were going to be sent outside the theatre of operations, that would be a completely different thing. To me this is something which ties the hands of any commander unnecessarily. I think we must remember the tremendous responsibility which a commander like that has. Just so that we may know where we stand on this matter, does the minister really believe this? If, in future, the duties that the United Nations commander wishes some portion of our troops to perform are in the nature of a temporary assignment, within the theatre of operations, and are simply a matter of routine duty, do the minister and this government feel that on every occasion this government's permission must first be obtained?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter of opinion. When the hon. gentleman talks about the impossibility and the undesirability of a United Nations commander in the field having to consult sixteen governments before he uses their troops for temporary duty in any way in which he may see fit, that is one way of stating the case. The fact of this situation is that there are, I think, only two governments in Korea-apart from the United States government-which have self-contained forces there to be used there as an entity; other forces are there as small contingents and under the terms of reference under which they were submitted to the United Nations, there may be no mention of the way in which they should be used. They are battalions and even smaller than battalions. We sent a self-contained brigade. As 1 indicated this morning, in making that brigade available to the United Nations for combat duty-and that phrase was used in our submission to the Secretary General-in the directive to the brigadier it was made quite clear that the principle of the separate entity of Canadian forces was at all times to be maintained; and that principle was made clear to the unified command.
It was therefore felt that, before detaching even a small part of this brigade for duty 200 miles behind the front lines where the brigade was stationed, it would have been advisable-as no military consideration was involved-for the unified commander to have apprised the Canadian government of his desire. That was the only point at issue. Now that the exchange has taken place between the two governments, that point has been cleared up in a way which is satisfactory to us and, I think, to the United States government.
[Mr. Hees.l

It is always a difficult problem in combined operations of this kind, especially United Nations operations, to reconcile national interests and international action, as I mentioned the other day. I hope that as a result of this exchange and this clearing of the air that problem will not arise in the future. It is also quite clear that not merely this government but all Canadian governments have attached great importance to the principle of Canadian troops serving under Canadian command and being under Canadian control when they are in combined forces, always subject to considerations of military emergency. In respect of our association with other commonwealth forces in the last war we went to the extent, in this House of Commons, of passing the Visiting Forces Act to make sure it was done in this way.


George Harris Hees: There is just one more question I should like to ask the minister and it is this. If in the future we find ourselves called upon to make a protest to an allied government about some matter such as this, does the minister not think that instead of doing it in the way of headlines, it would be preferable to do it between the two governments in a quiet, restrained and unpublicized manner? Which does he think is the best way of carrying out this kind of communication between governments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can answer that question only by saying that we should be governed by circumstances. This was a situation which we thought was of far greater interest and importance to Canada than it was to the United States or to the United Nations. We therefore made our public statement in the House of Commons. There may not have been in our minds any idea that that statement would cause the headlines that it actually caused in the United States and would arouse as much interest among the editors of certain newspapers such as the Chicago Tribune, the Patterson press, and the Hearst press as well as the Washington Post. I would not want to lay down any hard and fast rule governing situations of this kind.
I think that in any difference of opinion with a friendly government we must always weigh two factors, namely the protection of our own national interests and the effect that any public discussion and division of opinion would have on the unity and the solidarity of the coalition. Those two factors must be taken into consideration in any statement we make or in any action we take which may not be agreeable to some other member of the coalition. In this particular situation, as this was an important matter of principle although the number of troops involved was small, in order to emphasize this Canadian

interest we decided it would be well to make our statement publicly in the House of Commons.
Having said that, I agree entirely with my hon. friend when he says that we should be extremely careful, in any of these differences we may have, to weigh the effect of a public difference on the unity of the alliance. We are all free countries in this coalition. We have to pay a certain price for freedom. One way in which that price is expressed is in our right to disagree publicly with each other. In doing that we cannot help, on certain occasions, giving ammunition to our enemies. There is no doubt about that. But nevertheless we should not give them any more ammunition or any stronger ammunition than the circumstances make necessary.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I intend to change the subject and to take the opportunity provided by consideration of the minister's estimates to make a few observations concerning an organization that comes within the jurisdiction of the minister's department. It is an organization that has demonstrated cooperation and great achievement throughout the years based on good will and friendship between two great countries, Canada and the United States. I am referring particularly to the international joint commission. I am making these few observations this afternoon because I believe that there are a great many people in Canada who are not aware of the importance of this commission or of the good work that it has done throughout the years, and particularly on account of certain remarks made in certain places and in certain editorials and press comments across this country in connection with the personnel and the functions of the commission.
Before I proceed, Mr. Chairman, I might say that we in this group have a high regard for the functions of the international joint commission and for the way in which it works. This getting together of two countries to assemble facts and evidence and then, as a result of that assembling of facts and evidence, to decide where a structure shall be built for the development of our natural resources to the advantage of the people in both countries in many cases, or in one country or the other, is a clear indication of the type of planning that we in this group believe in.
I understand the major functions of the international joint commission are two in number. The first is the hearing of and dealing with applications received from governments or companies who wish to erect certain structures that will affect the level of waters at the international boundary. The second is in dealing with references made to the commission by the governments of Canada and the
Supply-External Affairs United States for certain investigations. I understand that the first applications for investigations were heard in 1912, or that the first application for hearing before the commission was made at that date. Since that time I understand some 45 hearings have been disposed of by the commission. In a previous debate an hon. member said that there should be an investigation of the work of the international joint commission. I cannot see that point, Mr. Chairman, because anyone who wishes to peruse the evidence placed before the commission in all the hearings since 1912 to this day and the disposal of those hearings would have a very thorough understanding of the function and the work of the international joint commission. I understand that at the present time there are three applications before the commission: one from the government of the United States concerning the dam at Libby, Montana; one from the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company concerning the erection of a dam at Waneta; and one from the city of Minot, North Dakota in the United States, concerning some action that will be taken on certain waters.
So far as investigations are concerned, I understand that eleven have been completed from 1912 to date, and six are still in progress. I mention these things briefly, Mr. Chairman, because I live in a constituency which is very interested in the work of the international joint commission at this time, and has been for some years. It is considering some very great problems of that area. I have had the opportunity to attend hearings in the United States and in Canada. I might say that personally I have been greatly impressed with the work the commission is doing and all the people whom I have met who have had an opportunity of attending these hearings have recognized the great value of the work the commission is doing.
I understand that the investigations still in progress are concerned with the Columbia river basis reference, which was issued on March 9, 1944, an investigation of tremendous importance to the people of southeastern British Columbia; the Sage creek reference of April 8, 1946 and the midwestern watershed reference concerning Waterton and Belly rivers and Souris and Red rivers of January 12, 1948, and the air pollution reference of January 12, 1949; the Saint John river reference of September 28, 1950, and the Niagara Falls reference of October 10, 1950.
I mention these, Mr. Chairman, to place on the record the fact that the commission is now making investigations that concern western Canada, the central provinces and eastern Canada. It is making investigations

Supply-External Affairs of great importance to the Canadian people. In view of the great industrial development and the need for power and the need for agricultural extension, there is no doubt about it that the importance of the work of the international joint commission is increasing from year to year. As a matter of fact, wise decisions on our future development depend to a great extent upon wise decisions made by the commission.
I want to make a brief reference to the personnel of the commission. Who are the people charged with the responsibility of representing Canada on the international joint commission? We are fortunate, Mr. Chairman, in Canada in having the type of personnel on the commission that we have at this time. I am mentioning this fact particularly because I think that well qualified men who make some personal sacrifice to serve Canada, as some members of the commission are doing at this time, should be recognized in this house and in the country. We have as the chairman General McNaughton, whose record in the first world war as a soldier, and in the second world war, was outstanding. He is a scientist, an outstanding engineer and administrator. He was the president of the national research council for some time. Mr. George Spence is the second member of the commission. He was a pioneer farmer in western Canada and has had long experience in the legislature, in parliament and in public affairs. He has shown himself to be an outstanding administrator in the administration of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act, and wherever he has gone his, shall I say, earthy and practical qualities have been recognized particularly by the farmers who attend the various hearings.
Then we have Mr. Lucien Dansereau, an engineer of long experience with the Department of Public Works, a man of wide experience in the field of public works in Canada and in eastern Canada, and in the administration of matters of that sort. In addition to that we have on the international joint commission a loyal staff. Some of the members have been serving that commission for a good many years. They have given loyal and devoted service. More than that, they are a staff who are particularly interested in the success of the commission's activities and in the work the commission is undertaking.
As I said before, I have had the opportunity of attending some of the hearings, and I have read a good number of reports of the various references and of the applications, and I have thus been able to obtain some knowledge of the work of the international joint commission. There is no


doubt about it, Mr. Chairman, that we in Canada are most fortunate to have the present members acting as members of the Canadian section of the international joint commission. They are doing a great work of great importance on an economical basis. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that a close examination of the figures will show that our international joint commission has performed a greater service at a less per capita cost throughout the years than any other international commission in the world. Knowing these -facts, Mr. Chairman, I am sure that hon. members and the majority of Canadians will join me in paying tribute to the work of the commission in the past and to the excellent work that the international joint commission is doing for Canada today.


Mr. Pearkes:: Earlier in this session similar attention was drawn to a decision handed down by the international court of justice, supporting a claim by the Norwegian government for the right to define that certain waters be included as territorial waters of the Norwegian government, which before that date had not been included as territorial waters.
In -their submission to the international court of justice the Norwegian government adopted what might also be called a new theory, in that they defined a base line which ran from headland to headland along their coast, and from that baseline westward -they included a zone which they considered was their territorial waters. I might say that the definition of this new territorial water affected the fishermen of the United Kingdom who previously had fished in those waters. Now a very similar problem arises in connection with the territorial waters of Canada, both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific.
I bring this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs at this time because of a recent agreement which has been made, known as the north Pacific fishery agreement, based on the peace treaty recently ratified with Japan. By that fishery treaty, Japan, or Japanese fishermen, agreed to -abstain from fishing salmon, halibut and herring in the north Pacific; but they have the right, as they have always had up to now, of fishing for other species of fish off our Canadian -coast. Not to any great extent have the Japanese in the past availed themselves of that right. But the right exists, and the right has been recognized by the fact that only those three species are included in the abstention clause. There are certain waters on the Pacific coast which one can only define as being inland waters lying between such islands as Vancouver island and the Queen Charlotte islands. They

include such waters as Hecate and Queen Charlotte straits and so on which, in the past, have been regarded as the high seas. They extend for more than three miles from any line drawn which follows the indentations of the British Columbia coast line.
For many years the fishermen of the United States have exercised the historic right of fishing for certain species in the waters between Vancouver island and the mainland, and between the Queen Charlotte islands and the mainland. I understand an interdepartmental committee has been set up in order to study this whole question of the definition of territorial waters. I would ask the minister to tell us what progress has been made by that interdepartmental committee in the discussion of this subject, because many departments are affected. I understand however that it is under the general conduct of the Department of External Affairs which, naturally, would be the department most vitally interested. I would ask how active that committee is, how many meetings they have held this year, when the last meeting was held, and what progress is being made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has raised a point of both practical and legal importance. The traditional position of Canada and a good many other countries has been, as hon. members know, to recognize the three-mile limit as the limit of territorial waters, though outside that three-mile limit it is usually understood that there would be a jurisdictional area extending farther.
This is an important matter from the standpoint of fisheries. The approach to it usually varies, in certain countries, according to whether the fishermen are inshore or offshore fishermen. There is another aspect of the question the hon. member has touched upon, namely the establishment of inland waters-whether one must follow the indentations of the coast line in establishing the three-mile line, and declare anything outside of that as open sea, or whether one should draw the line from headland to headland.
All these questions were given consideration at the time of the discussions in connection with the fisheries agreement with the United States and Japan. I can only say that if on that occasion we had insisted upon the abandonment of the traditional three-mile zone it might not have been possible to secure an agreement.
However, as the hon. member has pointed out, a decision has recently been handed 55704-221
Supply-External Affairs down by the international court of justice on an appeal from Norway, which does give a nation the right to establish a zone of territorial waters wider than the historic three-mile limit. The implications of the decision are important, and that is one of the matters being studied by the interdepartmental committee. I believe the question has also been considered by the fisheries committee of the house. The interdepartmental committee is an active one but has not yet reported to the government, although we expect to have a report from it before long. Represented on it are the Department of Justice and the Department of Fisheries as well as the Department of External Affairs. I am sorry I am not in a position to tell my hon. friend when we shall have the report, but we hope to have it soon.


George Randolph Pearkes: The minister, I understand, cannot report any progress at the moment by the committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can only report progress. This is not an easy or a simple matter, but rather one requiring consultation not only with other departments of this government but with other governments as well. It may take a little time before there can be any final report from the committee. However, I am sure a report will be made available as soon as possible.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will relate more particularly to item 102 in the estimates, which deals with the world health organization. The fifth assembly of the world health organization met in Geneva, Switzerland, this year from May 5 to May 22 inclusive, and I was honoured by being appointed by the government of Canada to the Canadian delegation attending that assembly.
The other delegates were Dr. Oliver Leroux, of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Dr. T. C. Routley, secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. J. T. Phair, deputy minister of the department of health in the province of Ontario, and Mr. Bruce Williams, representative at the permanent delegation of Canada to the European office of the United Nations.
Hon. members are aware that the world health organization was set up as a permanent independent agency at an international conference in New York in 1946. It is supported by funds, subscribed on an agreed basis by member governments.
WHO has its headquarters at Geneva, Switzerland, with six regional offices. One is in North America, one in South America, another in Europe, another in Africa, one in
3500	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs the eastern Mediterranean and another in the Far East. It gets support from governments in all parts of the world, with the exception of Russia and her satellites. They too belonged to the organization at first, but have later withdrawn their financial support.
WHO is run by a director-general in the person of Dr. Brock Chisholm, a Canadian, along with an executive board of eighteen members, six of whom are elected each year. This year Canada was elected to a seat on this board and will, therefore, have some say in the direction of the organization for the next three years. I may add that, in the voting, 60 nations cast their 'ballots. Two were spoiled, >and Canada got 57 of the 58 votes.
The four years that WHO has been in operation have given ample and positive proof that nations can share common problems and can work together for common solutions, while at the same time retaining their full national sovereignty. In the first four years nations have demonstrated that they are willing when necessary to subordinate their national, regional and ideological interests in order that the great work of WHO may go on.
When health leaders of the nations meet together through WHO, dedicated as they are for the betterment of health of all peoples, they cannot help but make a very vital contribution towards international co-operation 'and good will.
Throughout the centuries health professions have developed and applied principles of co-operation for great humanitarian objectives which transcend geographic, political and social barriers. It is this faith which brought WHO into being.
To state it simply and in its broadest terms, the goal of WHO is to prevent disease and heal the sick.
Discussion of international health appealed to our ancestors of two or three generations ago differently from what it does to us today. It meant to them that there were great killer plagues with which mankind has been afflicted since the very beginning of history. Hans Zinnser wrote a very vivid book entitled "Rats, Lice and History". One chapter deals with the relative unimportance of generals and draws attention to the fact that disease can be a much more effective killer than warfare and that epidemics have done as much to shape the course of history as great military leaders and military campaigns. We have only to read accounts of the bubonic plague, the black death, typhus, smallpox,
IMr. McMillan.]

intestinal diseases, syphilis, et cetera, to know that this was so. If we read history we find that our ancestors had great fear of these epidemics and many accounts are on record of how they tried to avoid disease. But lacking knowledge as to its cause and spread, they had frequent reminders of what epidemics meant in terms of fear, misery and wholesale death.
The first effort to control disease on an international scale took place about the middle of the last century or one hundred years ago. The main emphasis at that time was placed on quarantine, on the efforts to keep diseases outside the boundaries of countries. The opening of the Suez canal precipitated restrictive measures on the part of many European countries. The fear was that the opening of commerce with the east would introduce the bubonic plague, yellow fever and other diseases of that nature into European ports. Quarantine is still sound for certain circumstances, but today because of the advance in preventive medicine there is a well-based hope that a number of the most destructive epidemic diseases can be obliterated or at least suppressed to the point where we need no longer fear them to the same degree.
A new concept of international health was recognized in the formation of the world health organization. It is now accepted as reasonable and proper for those sections of world humanity which possess special health knowledge, skills and devices to share these possessions with their less fortunate fellow men. This is a very important new factor in international health, pioneered it is true by voluntary organizations but now vigorously supported by governments through WHO and the technical assistance programs.
Dr. L. A. Scheele, surgeon general of the United States and president of the WHO, who is retiring this year, said:
It has given structure and consistency to the reverence of human life in this world which has had too many lapses into barbarism.
In the four years of WHO existence there has been a greater reduction of death rates in many countries than in any similar period. Diseases like malaria, yaws, syphilis, smallpox, trachoma, plague and yellow fever are definitely being controlled, while tuberculosis and diseases due to environmental sanitation are also receding. Increased production of food and other goods has already resulted in many countries from the improvement of the health of the people. This has been most marked in large areas now under cultivation because of the scientific eradication of malaria infestation.
If we look over the list of subcommittees of WHO we will realize that much other work

is in progress, though probably with results less dramatic than those mentioned. A partial list would include public health administration, maternal and child health, nutrition, health education, nursing, exchange of scientific information, assistance to educational institutions, sanitary conventions and regulations, biological standardization, drugs that produce addiction, as well as committees on various diseases such as leprosy, tuberculosis, malaria, plague, cholera, poliomyelitis, bilhar-ziasis, et cetera.
The policy of WHO has been to encourage self-health. This is essential for the sound development of any program in preventive medicine. It is felt that if WHO supply the necessary materials and get the program well under way, and if the scheme is soundly conceived, it should then be carried through with local resources. The WHO policy was to require governments receiving assistance, either through the regular WHO program or through the special accounts for technical assistance, to pay certain of the local costs involved. These costs, which did not require the expenditure of foreign currency, included the provision of local services, labour, office space, supplies obtainable within the country, local transportation, postal and telecommunications. Lodgings for the international staff were also to be supplied by the recipient country, but in certain circumstances the director-general could agree to provide lodgings from WHO funds.
At the recent meeting in Geneva much dissatisfaction was expressed with these provisions by certain member countries. On behalf of our delegation I stated that the provisions should not be changed. A committee was set up to reconsider the policies on participation of member states in certain costs incurred by WHO. I was elected chairman of this committee which passed a draft resolution giving the director-general power to assume a whole list of local costs. In presenting the resolution to the whole committee I expressed my opposition, but it carried by a large majority. One clause of the resolution refers it to the 1953 world health assembly. I might say that our delegation debated this at different times and our argument was that if they assumed too great a proportion of the costs in a particular country they would not be able to carry out so many projects.
The Canadian delegation on various occasions objected to the increase of the 1953 budget over that of 1952. There were only two other states actively concerned in maintaining the 1953 budget at the 1952 level, namely, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. The financing of WHO budgets is complicated by the problem of nine inactive members and China which 55704-2211
Supply-External Affairs continue to be assessed. Under current procedures their assessments are not considered available for expenditure.
The budget this year, exclusive of money received from the technical assistance program of the United Nations, is up 11 per cent. The total budget is around $9,823,000. That does not mean that Canada will pay 11 per cent more, although we will pay roughly $9,000 more under the 1953 budget. Besides the budget, there were many other items up for discussion in which the Canadian delegation took an active part. Some of these included the approval of the program for' 1953, publications of the world health organization, the advisability of biennial assemblies,, the advisability of holding assemblies of the* world health organization away from Geneva, the sale of WHO seals, internal administration and bookkeeping, fellowships and many other matters. The Canadian delegation took no active part in the long and acrimonious debates both in committee and in the plenary sessions on "regions undesignated". This came up in connection with Tunisia and Morocco as well as when Turkey wanted to withdraw from the eastern Mediterranean regional jurisdiction. The complaint of a delegate from one country that no regional meetings were being held and the reply of the delegates of a group of other countries that no meetings would be held as long as the first country was a member kept the meeting in prolonged tension. While our delegation took no part in acrimonious debate, yet we offered suggestions on many matters, some of which were adopted. We think we did not fail to take a stand on all vital matters and hope we made a useful contribution to the conference.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order. Perhaps the hon. member for Yancouver-Quadra will permit the hon. member for Greenwood to ask a question having to do with the world health organization.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I wanted to ask the hon. member for Welland a question.
I noticed that he said that Russia and her satellites withdrew their financial support. Am I right in assuming that means they also-stayed away from the meetings?


William Hector McMillan: Yes, that is true.


Howard Charles Green: I should like the minister to bring us up to date on the situation in the Pacific and on Canada's policy on Pacific affairs. There seems to be less prospect of a truce in Korea although that impression is gained from press reports and may not represent the actual position. Then we would also like to know the situation in the other spots

Supply-External Affairs in Asia where there is fighting, particularly Indo-China and Malaya.
Another development within recent days, in fact I think it took place yesterday, was the recognition by the Japanese government of the Chinese nationalist government as the government for the whole of China. That appears to be a far-reaching step which may have far-reaching effects. It may even affect Canadian policy. Then there is the withdrawal by the United Kingdom of her commercial interests inside red China. That too seems to be quite an important change in the Pacific region.
We should also like to know whether the government is now any more favourably inclined than before to the negotiation of a pact in the Pacific which will serve the same purpose as the North Atlantic pact does in that area. As the minister knows, we have advocated such a pact for several years but the policy adopted has been one of bilateral agreements. There is an agreement between the United States and Japan, another between the United States and the Philippines, and a third between the United States and Australia and New Zealand. Is it the intention that there will only be these bilateral pacts or is there in prospect a wider pact which will set up some kind of defence organization for the Pacific?
I believe that Russia is more apt to make trouble in the Pacific than in the Atlantic. She has a much wider field across the Pacific ocean and seems to have been more aggressive there than in Europe. I am afraid that as a nation we do not appreciate how much trouble can come from the Pacific and, in fact, if a world war comes it may well come from that direction. I noticed reports in the Vancouver press of the last few days indicating that there has been Russian reconnaissance of Alaska and northern Canada by their strategic air force. That may or may not be true but certainly the Pacific is a dangerous spot, and I should like to know what the policy of the Canadian government is at the present time with regard to that great area.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman has brought up a very important subject and has touched upon a very important area of the world. The situation there certainly does not seem to be improving to any great extent -that is an understatement-even though in Europe it may be improving in some respects. I welcome the opportunity to say a few words about this area although I have made statements on the subject recently in the house. In that connection it was indicated this morning by the leader of the opposition that we did not have enough opportunity to
[Mr. Green.5

discuss these matters. I took the opportunity of the luncheon recess to find out on how many days we had discussed international affairs, including affairs in the Far East, during this session, and I think the record is such as to disprove the statement that we do not take these matters seriously in the House of Commons in so far as provision of time for their discussion is concerned. There were four separate occasions during this session when a debate on international matters was initiated, and advantage was taken of those occasions by any hon. member who wished to speak on international affairs. Now we are back again, and I do not complain about it a bit, on Far Eastern and Pacific matters.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has asked me to state the position with regard to Korea, Japan, Indo-China, Malaya and-I would have been very surprised indeed if he had not brought this up-a Pacific pact. So far as the situation in Malaya is concerned, if I may start there, there has been some improvement since General Templer took command, but it is still far from stable. The efforts that are being made to stamp out communist banditry are making progress but it is discouraging to realize that only four or five thousand of these bandits in the jungles of Malaya have been able to create this problem which has persisted for so many years. They are able to do it partly because of the nature of the country, the inaccessibility of the areas in which they take refuge, partly because there is a native population which, through fear, intimidation or some ofrer motive, has been helping them, and partly because they have been able to exploit legitimate feelings of nationalism and the desire for a better life. The situation is better but it is far from being satisfactory.
In Indo-China the drain on French resources of men and money continues. I am informed that the military position is better now than it has been for some time. There again one cannot become unduly optimistic because there always remains the possibility of outside intervention of a greater strength than has been the case up to the present time. The most encouraging feature I can think of in the Indo-Chinese situation has been the increased participation of the Viet N"~i government and army in the dangers that face them. As help continues to go to IndoChina, largely from the United States which is playing a very important part in this area of the world where we are defending ourselves against communist aggression, and where once again the United States is the cardinal factor in that defence, the Viet Nam army is assuming a greater share of responsibility. I believe that is an encouraging development. The more the defence of that

country can rest on a government of its own people and an army of its own people, the belter chance there is of keeping communism outside the country.
The situation in Japan has not altered very much since I last spoke on this matter except in relation to the development to which the hon. member referred, and to which reference was made in the press this morning. I should not like to comment on that until I see the actual text of the Japanese government statement. We have not yet received that text. Press accounts indicate that the recognition which was extended to the nationalist government of China by a treaty signed between the two governments has been extended from the area over which the nationalist government now exercises jurisdiction, that is to say Formosa, to the whole of China. If that is actually the case, it is a matter of some importance.
Then I do not need to tell the house that the armistice negotiations in Korea drag on their weary way. I am still of the opinion, and my opinion is shared by a good many people, that it would be a great mistake on our part if we on the western side took any steps to break off these negotiations. If that is to be done, let it be done by the other side. This policy has been adopted by the unified command, and has been put into effect by the representatives of the unified command with persistence and patience, and I think with great intelligence. Nevertheless little if any progress has been made, and I can only echo what the United Kingdom minister of defence-whom we are so happy to have in our country again-said yesterday, that no one can tell, because no one knows, what is in the hearts of the communist negotiators. As I have said before, there is probably a fifty-fifty chance; there may be an armistice or there may not; I do not know. As the talks drag on all the various governments concerned are searching for some way out of what seems to be an impasse in regard to the armistice and indeed what seems to be a difficult situation in Korea generally.
It has been suggested that the United Nations armistice negotiators might be changed, and representatives of other nations included. This might have been a good idea in the early days, and I do not desire to express an opinion on it, but I am inclined to believe with some others that it would not be of any great value today, and might be misinterpreted. If at this stage of the game the composition of the team of negotiators were changed by the addition of representatives from other nations, it might be taken as an indication of distrust in those
Supply-External Affairs negotiators-as though we had to have somebody alonside them to see what they were doing. We have no such distrust.
The situation in regard to prisoners of war, which seems to be the only point which stands between the negotiators and success, has not changed. There has been no progress in respect of the last offer which was made by the unified command. The communist negotiators have treated that offer, which as I said in the house at the time it was made was extremely fair, with ridicule and with violence. This does not necessarily mean that they may not change their minds very quickly. Violence in communist negotiations can almost instantaneously be followed by concessions if the word comes from headquarters to make concessions. So far there is no indication any such word is on the way.
There are other difficulties in connection with Korea. I touched on one of them this morning. There is the difficulty of the prisoners on Koje, which has come up in another connection. This was a most complicated and frightening problem. We may have our own views about it, but at the same time we have to realize that the situation which faced those on the spot, when they were confronted with the necessity of dealing with these prisoners by the thousands, was one of unprecedented complexity. They had to be dealt with at a time when the United Nations forces were retreating and at a time of great military uncertainty, when no one could be sure whether the position in Korea would be held. Thousands of prisoners had to be herded together without sufficient men to guard them. It is quite understandable that they should be thrown on an island and given some-I was going to use the word "freedom"-in their internal management. As it has turned out that has led to unfortunate consequences, but it is easy to be wise after the event. The Americans themselves, who do not hesitate to criticize their own efforts, have done so on this occasion. I think we should realize also however the difficult problem with which they were confronted. Whether or not they have made mistakes, the fact is now that extremely vigorous action has been taken. So far as we can judge the situation on that island of ill omen is quiet, and we must hope that this particular problem has been liquidated.
As to the future, I can only say that all the governments concerned, as I mentioned just a few minutes ago, are now looking for any possible way out of this situation, and especially in regard to what might be done about the prisoners of war. Consideration has been given to whether there might be some

Supply-External Affairs procedure by way of rescreening the prisoners under international control or some device of that kind which would remove the communist fear that the first screening was not fair. If that could be done and some new machinery set up along those lines it might be possible to remove what seems now to be the last obstacle to the armistice.
In making these investigations, however, I suggest we must of necessity insist on one principle, and1 that is that no one who has surrendered to the United Nations forces must be forced back to the country from which he came. The communists in Korea who talk so much about the Geneva protocol have already forced prisoners whom they have taken to join their own forces. They do not appear on any prisoner of war list; that is one of the incongruities of the situation. But whatever they may have done or not done, I suggest that in working out some arrangement for this prisoner of war question we must take our stand that no prisoner who genuinely refuses to go back-and it must be a genuine refusal1 given to somebody who is capable of interpreting the prisoner's wishes-should be forced back.
This is my final word. If armistice negotiations should break down and be succeeded by another all-out offensive on the part of the communists, the persons responsible- and I repeat what I have said before-should have it made clear to them that the consequences of a second all-out aggression might be far-reaching indeed, even farther reaching than the first.


Howard Charles Green: The minister did not deal with the question of a security pact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I apologize to the hon. member for omitting mention of the Pacific pact. Our position in that regard has not changed. The Prime Minister of Australia, who is as interested in this matter as the member for Vancouver-Quadra, has been having some discussions in London and Washington about a Pacific pact. I understand that he arrives in Ottawa on Sunday, and we shall have an exchange of views and go over the whole situation with him. So far as we are aware, however, the position remains as I stated it on April- 9, namely that ultimately a general Pacific pact of the nature indicated by my hon. friend may be the most desirable way of establishing and preserving security in the Pacific. At the present time we agree with Mr. John Foster Dulles, who had a great deal to do with the pacts that now exist in the Pacific, when he said:
I don't think it is feasible on any quick timetable to put together the countries of Asia in the same way as the countries of the Atlantic.


However, we shall be glad indeed to discuss this whole question with the Prime Minister of Australia when he arrives on Sunday, and to get his views on that matter.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell us the policy of the Canadian government with regard to Formosa?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We have no special relations with Formosa. Our policy toward Formosa is, I suppose, largely governed by the fact that it is the seat of the government of Chiang Kai-shek; and that is the government which at the present time is recognized as the government of China. Formosa is part of China and is recognized by us as such.


Mr. MacKenzie:: Before we rose for lunch a question was raised by someone with regard to the safety and the position of Canadian nationals in China. Perhaps the minister answered that question before I came in. If he did so, I am sorry to make reference to it now. The question was as to how safe they were in China and what we can do to assist them to leave China.
As a matter of fact, one of those whom I consider to be authorities on Chinese problems, namely Dr. Stuart Allen, was in Ottawa a couple of weeks ago. As will be remembered, he was interned at Chungking in China for about a year. I had an extremely interesting talk with him, and this particular question came up. While it is true that we have in red China no representative as such, nor has Britain-at least no potent one; it seems to me that Britain never had anything but a consular service there at any time- there are at least 22 countries which Canada recognizes, and with which she is quite friendly, which have full ambassador status in red China. They include such countries as Holland, Denmark, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden. I wonder whether it would not be possible for Canada to use the good offices of one of those countries that are so well established in red China to assist the Canadian nationals to get out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: 
Mr. Macnaughion:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to item 108 of the estimates. I am sure all hon. members are aware of the real assistance given under the United Nations expanded program for technical assistance to underdeveloped countries, of which vote 108 represents Canada's contribution thereto in the amount of $850,000. But it seems to me that we are not doing nearly enough for the new and struggling state of Israel. Consider for a moment just what the facts are.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. May I point out to the hon. member that we are considering item 85. I understand that his remarks are directed to item 108. Would it not be preferable for him to defer his remarks until that item is reached?


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: Mr. Chairman, I have discussed the matter with the minister and he suggested that it might be advisable for me to speak now, inasmuch as we are ranging over quite a number of subjects. However,
I bow to your ruling.
The Depuiy Chairman: Has the hon. member leave to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alan Aylesworth Macnaughton: In the first place, the new state of Israel is struggling with critical problems largely the result of the rapidity with which urgent immigration has been flowing into the country. So rapid has been the population increase that it has exceeded the rate of development of the country's physical resources. Large scale development plans and projects are under way which will eventually meet the needs of the increased population.
Israel is not only an Asiatic state in which democracy is practised and western techniques are dynamic; it is already a valuable customer of Canada. It is now a customer for Canadian products to the annual value of between $12 million and $13 million. By contrast the other Middle Eastern states purchased in 1950 Canadian products in the following amounts:
Jordan ..'	 $	46,338
Syria	 1,462,395
Egypt	 3,716,105
Iran	 992,407
Iraq	 70,127
Turkey	 3,743,554
The total purchases of Israel were more than those of all these other countries I have
Supply-External Affairs just mentioned. In 1950 Israel occupied nineteenth place in point of volume of purchase of Canadian products.
Probably the best evidence of the proper use of moneys advanced to assist in the development of underdeveloped countries is contained in the report of the secretary of the export-import bank with headquarters in Washington. Sidney Sherwood, the secretary of the export-import bank, in a short article under the heading "Making the Most of a Loan", wrote as follows. I should like to quote his words because I think they contain the germ of further worth-while ideas. He wrote:
In January of 1949, the export-import bank loan to Israel was made in the amount of $100 million to assist the new state in carrying out its economic development program. This loan to Israel was made only after long and thorough study of the economic risks involved.
He goes on later to say:
In fact, the export-import bank with $3 billion in outstanding loans or undisbursed commitments in over forty countries has few borrowers who have used their loan dollars more wisely or meticulously than has Israel.
The final report of the United Nations economic survey mission for the Middle East states:
The case of Israel is sui generis. There one finds a western civilization of the most modern type which is making prodigious efforts to draw life from the barren soil of Palestine.
In this age of transition when all over the world not only political ideologies but economic patterns are in sharp conflict, it is no wonder that eyes are being increasingly focused on the Middle East in a sharp concentration on the impact of all of the forces which plague the modern world.
Here we find the conflict of past and present. In Israel western civilization has been injected into a region dominated by an eastern, semi-feudalistic system of land-tenure. In Israel socialism and co-operative enterprise are working hand in hand and side by side with private enterprise for the development of a new economy.
Is it possible that the resolution of the problems concentrated in this small but strategic part of the world will provide patterns for solutions on a wider scale? If the experiments now being carried on in Israel and the Arab states succeed in finding a modus vivendi, history may well record that the Middle East played the role of the crossroads laboratory of civilization in one of the greatest crises the world has known.
This is a critical moment for the new state of Israel. Canadians have a strong cultural attachment with the peoples of Israel. We have already, especially in the United Nations, proved our friendship for that country. Now when Israel needs help to meet
3506	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs its economic crisis, we have the opportunity to prove our friendship in a practical way. Consequently I would ask the minister to give some attention to this very item, and see if there is not something more we as a Canadian nation can do to help one of our really good friends in the Middle East.


Mr. Adamson:: Before the item carries I should like to renew a plea I have made previously, though I have not renewed it as often as the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has renewed his request for a Pacific pact.	;


Howard Charles Green: We are going to get it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: We may even get what I am asking for.
The republic of Austria occupies a key position geographically in Europe. Not only does Austria occupy a key position geographically but she is still an occupied country with Russian troops actually on her soil. She is still very much in the forefront of the war that is not cold by any manner of means, certainly as far as the Russian occupied portion of the city of Vienna goes.
I again want to make a plea for recognition by the appointment of a Canadian minister to Vienna. I do that for a number of reasons. First of all, if Austria and her really amazing fight against engulfment by communism can be recognized, we will help to make her a strong as well as a free and independent country.
There is, and there always must be, a great cultural tie between Austria and Germany. They are both Germanic peoples. There is also a tremendous economic tie. It was, if I may say so, the stupidity of France in the twenties in opposing the proposed economic union which eventually sowed the seeds of the national socialist party in Austria and which eventually resulted in the putsch and the taking over of Austria by Hitler.
It must be remembered that the first real act of extraterritorial aggression by Hitler was against the sovereign state of Austria, and there is still a danger of regarding Austria as an adjunct of Germany. I would hope that as soon as possible our government will appoint a minister to Vienna. There are many excellent reasons for this, entirely apart from the geographical position of Austria. Three times before in history the very frontier which is being defended now was defended against the Asiatic horde. I had the privilege of being near Vienna, in the American zone on the Danube, and seeing the Americans manning positions. One of the officers showed me a mound near one of their posts which had been a Roman fortification nearly 2,000 years ago. 

Looking down from Kobenzl over Vienna one saw Russian barracks in almost exactly the same place as the Turkish encampments when Prince Sobieski, in September 1683, threw back the Mongol hordes. Those are historical incidents which are being repeated today. From our point of view we should do everything possible to recognize Austria as a sovereign nation, not as a territory to be serviced from our embassy or our legation in Berne, and certainly not as an adjunct of our embassy in Bonn. The minister may have done something about this in the last few weeks. If so I am glad to hear of it as Vienna is again the outpost of Christian and western civilization.
There is one other thing I should like to see done, and here again I may not be fully informed as to what may have happened. I refer to the procedure in providing asylum to the escapees. I think the attorney general of the United States, Francis Biddle, was prominent in the organization which looks after escapees from communist countries. Up to comparatively recent times the escapee would come over from the communist country. He would escape luckily with his life. Of course he would have no papers, and frequently very little identification. Because he had no papers and little identification, the first thing that would happen to him would be this. He would be put in prison until such time as he could get papers or other identification, which often was never. In other words, immediately he made his escape he was kept at a frontier point, in a state of imprisonment. There is of course a very obvious danger that many of the escapees may be plants; they may be Russian agents or communist agents escaping for that purpose, but I feel that there are methods by which we can weed out those who are in that category. I realize there is great difficulty in doing that. I would like to know what we are doing to see, so that these men who have had the courage to escape from the communist world, whatever part it may be, are looked after by some organization. I know our record in that respect has been good. As a matter of fact, until comparatively recent years our record was considerably better than that of the United States. We were prepared to take many of these people without all the documentation asked by the United States. I feel that is one of the worth-while things that can be done today in Europe, to assist our friends from behind the iron curtain, to obtain physical safety and political asylum.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In regard to the first point, we appreciate as does the hon. member the importance of Austria at this time-indeed especially at this time. We have been discussing with the Austrian government the possibility of an exchange of diplomatic

representatives. I hope to be able to make an announcement on the subject before long, though I cannot be sure that it will completely satisfy the hon. member.
Then with reference to the question of escapees, as the hon. member has indicated I believe it can be said that we have played some part in giving asylum to these unfortunate people some of whom have done so much for freedom, for democracy and for us. There is always the consideration of security, and it is a specially important consideration in these cases because, as the hon. member has suggested, this is the kind of thing that could be exploited by those desiring to bring people into our country for wrong purposes. However, once security considerations have been met, we have made special arrangements on occasions to take escapees into Canada, and I hope we will continue to discharge our share of that international duty.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I gather that every case is judged on its merits; there is no special organization looking after escapees?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, there is no special organization; but we have established contact with the committee to which my friend has referred. Then, of course, we are also participating in the new refugee organization, PICMME, that is continuing the work of IRO. Through that organization we are in touch with some of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Arising out of the minister's reply to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra when he asked about Formosa, I should like to ask a further question. I realize the minister's statement was necessarily brief. I realize, too, that there was no real need for him to repeat statements he had made before. It does strike me, however, that the statement he made today was a little too brief. All he said was that, so far as Formosa is concerned, it is the seat of the Chiang Kai-shek government, which the Canadian government still recognizes.
I trust-and this is my reason for rising at this time-that there is no change on the government's part in the position the minister indicated to the house earlier in this session. That was a repetition of the position he stated on previous occasions, but he gave it again on March 21, 1952, when, after making certain other statements, he said:
We do not intend to use our own forces to restore to China the regime which is now in Formosa after being driven off the mainland.
I trust the statement the minister made today, that the Chiang Kai-shek government on the island of Formosa is a government recognized by the Canadian government, does 55704-222
Supply-External Affairs not mean that this government is showing any interest in Chiang Kai-shek being restored to the mainland of China.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No. There is no change whatever in our position. And if any statement of mine this afternoon implied that there was, I would like to correct that implication. However, I do not think what I said is susceptible of that interpretation. If I remember correctly, I said we recognized Formosa as being under the jurisdiction of Chiang Kai-shek and, as such, part of China. It is de facto part of China. The final disposition of Formosa has not yet been determined; but it has always been viewed by this government in the light of international arrangements which had previously been agreed upon.
So far as any action is concerned on our part to restore the nationalist Chinese regime on Formosa, our attitude in that matter is exactly as it was stated last March.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister give the committee the latest news concerning the Ming Sung ships? The last word we had was that they were in Canton waiting to make a dash for Shanghai; but they are supposed to be our ships, and they are still flying our flag. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs could give us some information about them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I cannot add very much to the last statement on this matter made, I believe, by my colleague the Minister of Finance. These ships, so far as we know, are still in Canton; and so far as we know they have made no dash from Canton to any other port.


Howard Charles Green: Is there any possibility of getting
our money back?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are exploring every avenue which might mean the return of some of our money in respect of these ships. But I would not want to give heavy odds that we will get much of it back.


George Randolph Pearkes: Any of it.


Howard Charles Green: I raised the question because two days ago the Minister of Transport seemed a little more optimistic, when he said:
I am still hopeful that notwithstanding the present position it will be possible to recoup a substantial amount of our money involved in those operations.
I take it the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not so optimistic.


Hugh Alexander MacKenzie: Referring again to the status of Formosa, are the terms and regulations set out in the Cairo declaration which cover the destiny of Formosa still recognized as such?

Supply-External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I remember rightly we adhered to that Cairo declaration, and we also are committed to some extent by the terms of the peace declaration with Japan. But I would not wish that to be interpreted as meaning that we are bound at this date, in 1952, by every clause of the Cairo declaration, because other governments have not considered themselves bound by all of that declaration. And, though it would be an important consideration in any attempt finally to settle the future of Formosa, it is not necessarily a governing consideration. There might conceivably be some other disposition of Formosa, than that visualized in the Cairo declaration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
86. Passport office administration, $222,847.
Mr. McLure:: I understood the minister to say this morning that he is responsible for everything taking place in his department. I shall now make reference to something affecting his department, and then he will be free to judge whether or not he has been responsible for this condition.
In the last six months I have had considerable contact with the passport office. I must say that I would not have had this contact had not people written to me to obtain passports. You would think they could be picked up in about five seconds.
I should like to give the details of one case. Twenty-five years ago an immigrant from Denmark settled in Prince Edward Island. After he had been there a short time he married a fine lady and started in as a citizen of our province, taking out his naturalization papers five years later. He was quite successful in life, and only about two weeks ago decided to take a trip back to his homeland. He wanted to take his wife along. He made application to the passport office, but before doing so he paid for his transportation via New York.
Mr. J. W. O'Brien, a passport officer, sent the husband his passport' but wrote to the wife stating in a very nice letter that when she had married she had given up her citizenship. He explained to her that she would have to get a registration certificate from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. That is where I came into the picture. I got a long letter from these people telling me they were afraid they might lose their fare. I immediately telephoned to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and I sent over their letter at once by messenger.
The matter was taken up immediately and this lady in Charlottetown was told to fill out and sign certain papers and return them, after
fMr. Mackenzie.]

which a certificate would be issued immediately. The gentleman in that department
said he would take it over immediately to the passport office. I want to say that this gentleman, Mr. J. E. Duggan, and Mr. O'Brien both indicated that they were ready to do everything they could to provide service to the people who were requesting it. After dealing with them I have come to the conclusion that if there are two civil servants who are ready to do more under trying circumstances I would like to meet them.
Just one other incident I should like to mention. I wanted a small favour from the minister of external affairs. I knew he was a busy man, so I saw a Mr. Molson in his office. I want to say that I have never received better service from anyone since coming to Ottawa. I just wanted to place on record my appreciation of the courtesy extended by these three gentlemen. I leave it to the minister to say whether he is responsible or not.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It may be entirely unconstitutional, but I must say that the responsibility for the courteous and efficient service rests entirely with the officials concerned. I know they will be most gratified at the kind words of the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
87. Representation abroad-operational-including payment of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff appointed as directed by the governor general in council, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $4,938,357.
George Randolph Pearkes: Are the expenses of military attaches covered by this item?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, they would come under the Department of National Defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
93. Canadian section of Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence including $7,500 for the chairman, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $10,000.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain this item and also tell us who is the chairman of this board.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The chairman of the Canada-United States board is General McNaughton and the other members of the Canadian section are Admiral DeWolf, Air Vice-Marshal Miller, Major-General Sparling, Dr. R. A. MacKay of the Department of External Affairs, with Mr. Phillips of the Department of External Affairs as secretary. The board is most active and I believe at the moment is meeting at Whitehorse.


Howard Charles Green: I notice the salary of the chairman is $7,500. Is that paid in addition to the remuneration he receives in connection with other positions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: General McNaughton is paid $7,500 as chairman of this board and $7,500 as chairman of the international joint commission. While he is in receipt of those salaries he does not receive his pension. He gets a total income of $15,000 for his work on these two boards, but roughly $9,000 would be paid anyway as a pension under national defence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
96.	To provide for the construction and execution in Canada of seven doors to be donated by Canada to the United Nations permanent headquarters in New York, $50,000.
George Randolph Pearkes: What are these doors being made of?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Nickel-silver. They are the seven main entrance doors to the new United Nations building in New York.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B-General-
The Canadian government's assessment for membership in the following international or commonwealth organizations-
97.	United Nations organization, $1,463,200.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if under this item the minister could make a statement on Canada's part in the United Nations disarmament commission?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can make a statement and I hope to be able to keep it fairly brief. The disarmament commission, which was set up at the last assembly of the United Nations, has been quite active with meetings in New York. The Canadian representative on that commission is our permanent representative to the United Nations, Mr. David Johnson. In fact he was the chairman of the disarmament commission in the first month of its existence.
We had hoped that this commission might be the means of providing a sincere and constructive effort to reduce the level of armaments, but from the very beginning the delegate of the U.S.S.R. removed most of the hope we had of that purpose being achieved because he used the commission as a sounding board to attack the United States, especially in regard to the fantastic charge of germ warfare in Korea.
It is true that the U.S.S.R. did put forward their usual scheme for the immediate reduction of all armed forces. This scheme has been analysed, and we have tried to show them that it would not work. However, it was not considered desirable to take merely 55704-222J
Supply-External Affairs a negative attitude in this commission so the United Kingdom, the United States and the French members of the commission, in consultation with Canadian and other members, put forward a proposal of their own for arms reduction. It was thought that it was a practical one and could be taken as a basis for consideration. It was in a sense an effort to meet the Russian position, and it established the level of the armed forces of the U.S.S.R. and the United States at 1,500,000 men, of China I believe at 1,500,000 men, of France and the United Kingdom at 750,000 each, and with respect to other countries in the proportion of 1 per cent of their population. This was put forward by these delegates in good faith. It was hoped that it might be examined by the U.S.S.R. as a sincere and constructive proposal, but since then it has been turned down by the U.S.S.R. representative on the commission, and for the time being that has made progress difficult, if not impossible. However, the commission is not giving up and will continue to meet and report to the next session of the assembly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wish to express the hope that every use that can be made of this commission and other means in the propaganda battle will be used. We are getting into a state where we have various kinds of war and various kinds of peace. Amongst the wars we have are cold war, hot war and propaganda war. I suggest there are times when we do seem to let the other side take a little of the initiative in the propaganda for the reduction of armaments and for peace. I simply express the hope that we will not always let the other side make these moves first and leave us in the position of having to try to counteract them, but that on occasion we will use a commission such as this to make propaganda moves ourselves.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I agree. That was one of the reasons why so much time and effort were put into the proposal of the three western powers which I have just mentioned and which is still before the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Specialized agencies-
98.	Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, $246,800.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not want to be one of those who sneer at international organizations, because I believe in them very greatly. On the other hand, one does feel that it is very easy for them just to grow and grow if we say nothing about them. Here we have the food and agriculture organization which is costing us $135,000 more. Would the minister say a word about that? Actually it is costing us more than double this year.

Supply-External Affairs


Lester Bowles Pearson: The representatives of the Department of Agriculture could more effectively describe the operations of this United Nations specialized agency, but I can say that it is considered by those who have had something to do with it, and who have had something to do with other United Nations organizations, as one of the most practical and useful of the specialized agencies of the United Nations. The technical divisions of the food and agriculture organization through which it does its work are agriculture, distribution, commerce and statistics, forestry and fisheries, nutrition and rural welfare.
During the first five years of its operation FAO has established a statistical service in the fields of food and agriculture and forestry and fisheries. It has collected, collated and published a wide range of technical information. It has also-and I think this is the most important part of its work-assisted participating countries, especially what we call underdeveloped countries, in improving the efficiency of their food production by providing them with technical advice and assistance for various periods of time and by sending technical agricultural missions to those countries. Canadian experts have taken part in a good many of these missions.
FAO has also -undertaken a number of experimental projects in the field under its terms of reference. One that occurs to me was in Mexico where, by virtue of an FAO mission and the assistance FAO was able to give to that country, the production of a certain agricultural commodity was increased many times with great value to Mexico. I think it is doing a useful and practical job the value of which, of course, as is so often the case in these matters, is much greater to countries less materially advanced than to those like Canada which are materially advanced in agriculture. I can only conclude by saying that I think the money we spend on the food and agriculture organization is well spent.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: As the minister described it, it reminded one, though with differences, of the Colombo plan. I suppose there is a very marked difference. The Colombo plan, I take it, does not deal directly with food but with mechanical installations of various kinds. I suppose that first of all the Colombo plan is not a United Nations plan but a commonwealth plan, and I take it there is a great distinction there. The minister spoke of FAO being able to do useful and constructive work in Mexico. I take it that was merely by way of advice. I suppose FAO has no -means of stepping in and giving material assistance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In the case of the Mexican venture which I mentioned they did in fact send a technical agricultural mission to Mexico which stayed there some time and was responsible to a very large extent for the increased production. It also used facilities placed at its disposal by the government of Mexico. The Colombo plan of course works in co-operation with FAO whenever any project under the Colombo plan needs agricultural experts or agricultural assistance. That has happened once or twice already.


Mr. Low:: I should like to ask the minister whether FAO has arrived at a position any nearer to the acceptance of such an organization as an international commodity clearing house for the proper distribution of world surpluses of food.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know that FAO has been interesting itself for a good many years in marketing problems through its marketing committees, especially in the establishment of what I might call an international ever normal granary, -but it has not yet been able to produce a scheme acceptable to all the governments concerned. The work in that field has not proceeded beyond the investigational and exploratory stage.


John Horne Blackmore: May I ask the minister what seems to be the main difficulty in the way of establishing a scheme that would be acceptable. Is it finance?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should not like the committee to consider me an authority on this matter. I suspect the main difficulty has been to reconcile the interests of the predominantly food producing countries with those of the food consuming countries.


John Horne Blackmore: That would be a matter of finance, would it not?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Oh, well, Mr. Chairman,
finance enters into all these matters. That is quite true.


John Horne Blackmore: I realize that the minister is in a difficult position in dealing with this matter. Human common sense would dictate that mankind should believe that where we can produce an abundance of goods we should somehow or other be able to get them into the hands of people who want to use them. My general idea concerning FAO at its inception was that the men who conceived the idea intended to accomplish exactly that. They said that if man can produce the goods then it is our business to be able to put them into the possession of the people who want to consume them. In other words if the world can produce enough food, clothing and shelter, it is a complete anomaly that 1,500 million

people should go to bed hungry every night.
It is our business to devise ways and means whereby that production of which the world is capable shall supply the needs of such unfortunate people. Do I get the impression that the minister thinks that was the idea behind the FAO?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot really add very much to what I have said on this matter. As some hon. members will recall, this question was discussed in some detail before the standing committee on external affairs. There is an FAO committee on commodity problems. It is meeting now, and is going to correlate the needs of the various agricultural organizations. The Canadian representatives on that committee are I believe Dr. Barton and Dr. Hudson. A report on the work of the committee up to the present was given to the standing committee on external affairs. If hon. members are interested, they will find it as an appendix to the minutes and proceedings of the committee, No. 3. The report of the FAO committee on commodity problems has outlined some of the difficulties in the way of success in this field, but FAO is endeavouring to make progress.


Solon Earl Low: I have just a word to say, Mr. Chairman, in connection with this same item. I should like to say that the reason I asked the question was this. Since we examined the estimates in the external affairs committee a report was issued by one of the agencies of United Nations, I believe on May 12, indicating in some detail the conditions in the world with respect to food. I believe one of the important statements made in the report was that, in the opinion of the committee, if all the factors, land, fertilizer, modern machinery and the technical knowhow throughout the world were to be utilized fully, there is no question about the ability of the world to produce sufficient food to take care of the needs of 2,400 million people. It is believed that they could be fed and kept at a fairly good standard of well-being.
That being the case, I have wondered about our own situation in Canada. We are not producing anything like the amount of food we could produce. Our farmers are afraid to go all-out in their productive efforts because they cannot find a market. If they did make that all-out effort they would find, under present circumstances at any rate, that present prices would be depressed so badly they just could not stay in business. It does seem to me a sad state of affairs that our producers of food in this country are not making an effort, and that inducements are not held out to them to enable them to
Supply-External Affairs produce all the food the world needs and yet stay in business. This is especially true when one considers the statement of the hon. member for Lethbridge that nearly half of the world's population is forced to go to bed hungry every night. We come face to face with the paradox of the world's, abundance on the one hand, and on the other the suffering and deprivation on the part, of half the people.
Because I have thought a good deal about that since that report was issued, I asked the-question about the international commodity clearing house. It seems to me that such a body is not only desirable but absolutely essential if we are going to be able to furnish these people in backward countries and underprivileged areas with the things they need. It seems to me now is the time to be pushing this just as hard as we possibly can.
While I am saying something about this work, I should like to mention the services of the gentleman who made his report in the external affairs committee, Mr. Nik Cavell. I believe his services had been utilized in connection with technical assistance. I am sure the minister will not mind my mentioning it at this point, but I heard his report and had an opportunity to question him in the committee. I must say that Canada is fortunate in having a man of his ability and wide experience to administer our share of the technical assistance being advanced to the underprivileged and underdeveloped areas of the world. I was deeply appreciative of the fine job this man has done, and I wanted to say a word before the committee. I believe we are very fortunate in having a man of his calibre engaged in this work.
When we come to item 108 I hope the minister, in answering a plea that was made on behalf of Israel this afternoon by the hon. member for Mount Royal, will mention what plans are now in the process of formulation for increasing the amount of assistance to these underprivileged areas, and whether it is possible for him to use more money, and use it wisely and efficiently, than is being provided at the moment.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not wish to hold matters up, but it seems to me that in this problem which has been raised there lies the whole secret of the decision as to whether or not we are going to win the peace. It is a foregone conclusion which must be obvious to every thoughtful person inside this house and out, that we cannot reasonably expect conditions of peace to prevail in a world in which 1,500 million people have to go to bed

Supply-External Affairs hungry every night. In a world which the great Creator has abundantly provided with the means of production of all the goods which are necessary to give everyone in the world a reasonable standard of living, I do not think we can afford to let this matter slip by without a considerable amount of emphasis in our expression concerning the question.
I realize that the minister is quite helpless in this matter. Nevertheless it comes up for discussion under his estimates. It is just one of the headaches, of which he has an abundant supply.


Mr. Gillis:: Tell him how to fix it up.


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, I shall tell him how to fix it up. As a matter of fact, in my speeches in this house during the last two years I have laid down a definite policy to fix it up. There has been no criticism of the suggestions I have made, nor intelligent questioning of those suggestions. I shall challenge anybody in this house to offer any criticism.
It is quite obvious that the difficulty is financial. The FAO organization, no matter how it may try, under the present financial system just cannot possibly get the money with which to buy from Canada, as an example, the surplus goods that Canada can produce and render available for distribution in the world. Now, is that not putting the matter simply, in a nutshell? That is the problem, is it not?


Clarence Gillis: That is right.


John Horne Blackmore: How do you solve that problem? What we are trying to do is to tax Canada, in addition to all the other taxes we are laying on, for the FAO. Under our present financial system we are forced to tax Canada for enough additional money to provide the FAO with enough money to enable the FAO to buy the surplus products of Canada. Is that not plainly and simply put? In respect of the United States, FAO under the present financial system has to call on the United States to tax the United States for enough additional money to provide FAO with enough dollars to buy the surplus products the United States is capable of fabricating and rendering available for distribution in the world. Is that not putting it straight?
The problem is this. Canada cannot afford that taxation. The United States cannot afford that taxation. If those two nations cannot afford it, no other nation can. Then how in the world are we going to enable FAO to obtain the money with which to buy the surplus production these two nations alone are capable of fabricating? That is the question simply put. tMr. Blackmore.]


Clarence Gillis: The hungry countries have no money and they have nothing to exchange.


John Horne Blackmore: That is right. Therefore do we say that because they have nothing to exchange, they must die?


Clarence Gillis: Not necessarily. But you have to tax somebody to pay your producers for the goods.


John Horne Blackmore: But you cannot tax the people who produce them; and it is a foregone conclusion that you cannot tax the people who have to consume them, because those potential consumers are already in the depths of poverty.


Clarence Gillis: So where do we go from there?


John Horne Blackmore: That is the question. Where do we go from there? The answer must be found in what social credit has proposed time and time again for seventeen solid years in this house, namely that nations must be prepared to create money debt free and render that money available. Let us take the United States as an example. The United States could create money by the billions, debt free, in order to buy her own surplus of production. A number of people may say, "That will not work." But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that we have found out that nothing which has been proposed up to the present time can possibly work. If the solution is to be found, it must be along the line of creating debt free dollars.
Could the United States safely create $1 billion of United States money and put it into the hands of FAO, to be used for the purchase and distribution of United States goods among needy nations? The answer is a resounding yes. All United States history and all financial history proves it beyond any shadow of doubt, if we will clear away the prejudice which has been engendered in our minds by men who have endeavoured to keep us enslaved. Abraham Lincoln created $450 million of greenbacks in the civil war. With those dollars he won the war. It now remains to be shown why the United States administration today could not create a corresponding amount of money, debt free, and either give it to FAO or put it in the hands of the needy nations so they can buy American goods.
The greatest problem that faces the United States and Canada today is that of markets, the problem of being able to get rid of their goods. I do not wish to bear down on this subject too long, Mr. Chairman, but I think the House of Commons should require the minister to determine exactly why FAO is unable to do the thing it ought to do-and

which everybody's common sense tells him it. ought to do-and then, the next time he comes before the house, be prepared to give not a shifty, evasive, meaningless answer but a factual answer that will meet the demands of intelligent minds.
I do not propose to enlarge on this subject because probably it would not be quite in order for me to do so. On the other hand I do not know but that it is the thing which is most in order under this item. If an arrangement could be made among the nations-the United States, Canada, Britain, France, the members of NATO and all the other nations that are able to produce and that want to purchase and want to sell- for determining some means whereby money could be created and rendered available for buying and distributing surplus goods, there is no reason under the sun why such a proposal should not succeed. It will be the greatest single factor contributing to peace just as the lack of it now is the greatest single factor contributing to war. For us to pretend that we can seriously go about the problems of removing the causes of war without attacking this essential matter of money for distributing surplus goods is to make ourselves ridiculous in the eyes of all realistic people.
Last year I suggested-and with this comment I will close at the present time unless I am provoked to go on a little further-that we could easily make Great Britain the clearing house. The hon. member for Cape Breton South will readily appreciate this suggestion. We could easily make Great Britain the clearing house if we and the United States would get off Great Britain's back, and abolish our contemptible unconditional most favoured nation clause and our GATT arrangement and all the others that have been strangling our commonwealth, and in place of them take effective measures to make Britain strong as she should be by now, so long after the war. Great Britain can create pounds sterling. There is no question about the remarkable success of the pound sterling, is there? There is no reason under the sun why Great Britain cannot create pounds sterling and distribute those among these unfortunate nations, take from us the goods which are necessary to enable her to support such pound sterling issues and become a great factor in the distribution of goods in the world. If there is anyone in the country who can offer a reason for questioning what I have said, I hope he will get into this chamber and give the reason. I am challenging anyone to show that the method of approach which I have suggested would not succeed.
Supply-External Affairs
Most of those nations that are now "have not" nations can produce certain kinds of goods and offer them for sale. Let us take Japan as an example. There is no nation on the earth that is potentially a better producer than is Japan. There are no people who are more skilful, more adaptable and more willing to work than are the Japanese people. Yet when they produce and then offer their goods to the world, they confront an almost impassable barrier because we refuse to accept their goods, What is the way out of all that difficulty? If Britain could take raw materials from raw material producing nations and exchange those with the Japanese for the goods they are able to produce, and then place those Japanese goods in the nations where they are needed and receive their production in return, it is conceivable that it would not be long-probably four or five years-until you would have built up in Britain an organization as a result of which the whole world trade could begin to be integrated and you would have real multilateral trade.


Mr. Murray (Cariboo):: Will the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Horne Blackmore: Just so long as it is a little more intelligent than the questions the hon. member ordinarily asks. Just ask a question that is intelligent. If the hon. member asks a question to which he requires an answer I will take care of every question he asks.


George Matheson Murray: If the hon. gentleman wishes to be impertinent I will not honour him by asking a question.


John Horne Blackmore: The difficulty with the hon. gentleman is that the only questions he has ever asked me have been impertinent ones. Up to the present time that has been my experience with him. If what I have said has offended him I withdraw it. Let it be a pertinent and intelligent question and I shall be happy to answer it.


George Matheson Murray: I would ask my hon. friend whether the textile industry in Japan would continue to prosper and whether the textile industry of England would continue to prosper under the arrangement he has in mind?


John Horne Blackmore: Yes, because-


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: It is a good question.


William Alfred Robinson: Order.


John Horne Blackmore: The answer would be-


William Alfred Robinson: We have had a very
full discussion on the first item of these estimates, and I was wondering whether the
3514	HOUSE OF
Supply-External Affairs hon. member would co-operate by directing his remarks more particularly to item 98, which deals with the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations.


John Horne Blackmore: I shall be glad to, Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all, the answer to the hon. gentleman, whose question was quite intelligent and straightforward, is this: Yes, all the textile industries of all the world could prosper if the people needing textiles were provided with the means of buying the products of these textile industries.
The answer to the hon. gentleman's question first of all would be this question: Is there among the 2,400 million people of the world a need for all the textiles that all the textile industries in the world can fabricate? The answer to that question must be a resounding yes. Then why in the name of common sense can we not provide the people who need textiles with the means of buying the textiles that the textile industries of the world stand ready and eager to produce? That is the question. I submit that if there is any member in the house who would give a realistic answer to that question, that answer must be yes. I thank the hon. member for his question. The same thing would be true in respect of all other goods.
For a further example, is there any conceivable reason, as the hon. member for Peace River has pointed out, why we today in Canada should be reducing or limiting our production of hogs when 1,500 million suffering people require food? We are discouraging the production of cheese, of milk, of eggs, of fruit and a great number of other commodities. We ask: Are we discouraging their production? Of course we are, because we say there are no markets. Well, there are people needing these foods, hundreds of millions of them. People are dying because they cannot get the foods. A food and agriculture organization has been set up to take care of that very problem, and the item providing for the support of that organization is under discussion before us at this moment. What are we going to do about it? I submit that until the Secretary of State for External Affairs calls on the members of the Canadian cabinet and says:	Gentlemen, we just cannot fool with this thing any longer. If I am going to go on working with you I want you fellows to get down to brass tacks and get a solution to this distribution problem. I do not want to wait ten years to do it, either. I want you to have something shaped up in two months.


Solon Earl Low: Page Jimmy.


John Horne Blackmore: Page the Minister of Finance. He is the one man-
[The Deputy Chairman.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: And Howe!


John Horne Blackmore: That is right.
Let us turn to Germany. Look at the tremendous capacity there is in Germany for producing goods of all kinds. When you mention that enormous increase in the productive capacity of Germany how do you feel? You feel worried because they are going to compete with us for the world's markets. Well, can you think of anything more absolutely fantastic than to be in fear of greater production in a world where there is a tremendous amount of need?


Mr. Martin:: I am sure nobody wants to ask the hon. member to abbreviate his remarks, because what he is saying is extremely important; but there are other occasions for saying it and I submit that this is not thp particular item under which to discuss this matter. There may be other opportunities later on. I do not like to restrict my hon. friend but I do suggest that the important observations he is making could be made on another item, perhaps at another time.


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I had already drawn to the attention of the hon. member for Lethbridge the fact that we were discussing the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, under item 98. I would ask him to co-operate by directing his remarks more particularly to this item.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, I cannot see how in the world a person's remarks could be more particularly directed right to this problem of food and agriculture. How are we going to get food produced? How are we going to get it consumed? If that is not what this organization is set up for, I ask you in the name of common sense what it is set up for, and what is the use of spending any time and money on a thing that cannot begin to solve the problem? Is there anyone who is prepared to question me on that matter?
I greatly appreciate the courteous way in which you have managed this affair, Mr. Chairman, and I greatly appreciate the courteous way in which the Minister of National Health and Welfare raised the question. I will accept the minister's suggestion that I seize another opportunity; but I will tell you about what will happen. This matter ought to be discussed on the estimates of the Minister of Finance. The minister should come right here in this house and every member of this house should be right here and say: "Doug Abbott, we want answers; we want results. We do not want you to get up and parade out of the house when we begin to talk about this thing. We do not want you to send in your parliamentary

assistant to talk about this thing so we cannot get at you. You are the fellow who has to help solve this problem, and we want you to do it right here and not next year".
Last year I tried in every way to get the Minister of Finance on the floor of the house to discuss this matter in a straightforward, scientific, realistic way, with no results at all but insults, practically, because the minister went out on June 20 and stayed out. On June 30 he did not even come in to discuss his estimates. He was utterly afraid to face the problem on the solution of which depends the whole success of the food and agriculture organization and peace or warfare in the world. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
99. International labour organization, $248,900.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to raise again with the minister the question I raised before. The international labour organization was established in 1919 at the time of the establishment of the league of nations. It was an independent organization; and it has continued to do useful work. I should like to hear from the minister just what functions it discharges and as to what relationship, if any, it has to the United Nations Organization. I remind the minister of what I said a moment ago-if I am wrong he will correct me-that I think it was established in 1919 at the time of the league of nations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The international labour
organization is a specialized agency of the United Nations, even though it was established long before the United Nations. Actually it was established in the time of the old league of nations, as my hon. friend recalls. It has been very active since the war. A number of international labour conferences have been held which representatives of employers, employees and governments attended; there have been various trade committee meetings held. About 200 conventions and recommendations have been adopted, dealing with wages, hours of work, employment of women and children, labour conditions in special industries and things of that kind. I think these conventions have been useful. There again the situation is very much like that of FAO. The usefulness of this organization is greater in countries where labour standards are not as highly developed as they are in our own country. But I think it is a useful international organization. It is certainly considered as such by the labour organizations of this country, and I hope this vote for the continuance of Canadian support will be accepted by the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-External Affairs
100. United Nations educational, scientific and cultural organization, $331,800.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Has consideration been given to the proposal that Canada send three delegates to the gathering at Venice organized under UNESCO with respect to an international society of artists? I believe a request was made to the government that financial assistance be made available for the sending of these delegates. What has been the outcome of that request?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry I have not that information at hand at the moment, but I shall be glad to secure it before the discussion of the estimates is complete and give the hon. member the information.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I do not wish to cast myself in the role of a hard-boiled Philistine; but this is an organization one often hears criticized, and I think probably unfairly. It is easy to criticize UNESCO because it deals with cultural things which are hard to assess in any ordinary, mechanical way. Would the minister say a word, on this subject?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate the fact that UNESCO was one of the specialized agencies which was subjected to a good deal of criticism, especially in the earlier stages of its existence. I think that criticism' sprang largely from the fact-perhaps I should say from the suspicion-that too many of the resources of UNESCO were going into projects which did not have sound bases in reality, and that too much academic-and I am using the word "academic" in the wrong sense-work was being done. It was felt that some of the projects put forward for international examination were, to say the least, pretty unreal.
The policy of the Canadian delegation at UNESCO meetings has been to try to introduce-and we are not alone in this-an element of practicality and reality into UNESCO activities. We think a good deal of progress has been made in that direction. Under the leadership of the present director-general I think UNESCO is performing a useful function in the field of what we might call nonmaterial co-operation; and this should be a very important field of international cooperation indeed.
We discussed this matter not long ago- perhaps it was in the standing committee on external affairs-and reference was made to whether UNESCO might try to get agreement on som,e of the more important periods of history so there could be a universal history text book. I doubt if that would be possible, but I certainly think it is something worth trying for.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-External Affairs
103. Commonwealth economic committee, $16,830.
James MacKerras Macdonnell: What are the functions of the economic committee? The amount involved is small, but I would like to know what it is for.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is a commonwealth committee which originated from one of the resolutions of the imperial economic conference of 1923. It has continued in existence ever since, though now on a much reduced scale of activity. There was some question after the war as to whether certain of these commonwealth committees, which had not been very active, should be re-established. It was decided to re-establish this committee but to keep its activities down to a minimum so that, if it could be used for purposes of expansion later on, as work developed^ it would be available.
I must confess there has not been much for it to do since the war. On the other hand its expenses are limited. It does issue volumes of what it calls a commodity series, setting out statistics in regard to world production, commonwealth production and commonwealth trade. It has also been issuing certain periodical intelligence services which are published sometimes weekly and sometimes monthly, as necessity indicates. This is an intelligence service in respect of trade in certain commodities within the commonwealth. That is about the extent of its activities.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I would hesitate to suggest spending more money, but I would ask whether in fact this organization is occupying the field alone. In other words is there any other organization seeking to do this particular work? If not, then without wishing to refer to other debates that have taken place, it seems to me this is a matter of considerable importance; and I suggest that the minister might study it with a view to seeing whether its activities might be extended.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a good suggestion. As a matter of fact we were one of the doubtful .governments after the war, doubtful in the sense that we wondered whether it was worthwhile reviving the committee. But we found ourselves in a minority at that time, and agreed to its revival. At the present time a review of the activities of this commonwealth economic committee is being undertaken. In the light of that review it will be decided by the governments concerned whether the committee should be continued.


John Horne Blackmore: Mr. Chairman, in this connection I fancy people throughout the country who read Hansard will be interested in the following figures. Canada this year can afford $1,463,200 for the United Nations
(Mr. Pearson.]
Organization; she can afford $246,800 for FAO; she can afford $248,900 for the international labour organization, and $331,800 for UNESCO. But for the commonwealth economic committee she can afford only 16,830 measly dollars.
That is something to arouse a person's interest. We know the greatness the British commonwealth had attained up to world war I. We know the British commonwealth almost single-handed, with the assistance of France and Russia, held the Kaiser at bay. We know the British commonwealth held Hitler at bay. One of the greatest stabilizing factors the world over, not only from the military but from the economic standpoint, was the British commonwealth. Why in the world is it we have lost interest in the British commonwealth? What has gone wrong with the puny men who are guiding us today? What are the powers behind them that are making them act like this? Surely what the British commonwealth was it is capable of becoming again; it has the same people and the same resources.
Why was there any doubt as to whether or not this economic committee should continue? I will tell you why. The policy, the concepts of men in the Canadian government and in the other governments that had to do with all this whole thing were guided by a group of evil people who wanted to destroy the British commonwealth. Why do they want to destroy the British commonwealth? Because the British commonwealth has been too great a blessing to mankind, in the minds of those evil people who are guiding the destinies of the world right now-from the United States. The thing we have to face up to right now is whether we are going to allow these evil forces to continue to weaken the British commonwealth and disintegrate it as they have already gone far towards doing, or whether we are going to have the British commonwealth rise and become the great and mighty power it ought to be in this year 1952, and which it can be if the Canadian government and other governments in the empire stand solidly together and say to the United States, "you have gone just as far as you are going to go in this matter of destroying the British empire".
I say that next time the minister should bring down probably ten times as large a vote for this economic committee, and I hope he will do other things to change the ideas of certain people. I still believe there is a great deal of virtue in that fine song about Britain which goes: "God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet". That applies to the British commonwealth if we

have the wisdom and courage to apply it. So will the minister just see that this economic committee is supported more generously in the future and be ready to bring in a report next time which will go much further than just telling us about a few pamphlets of statistics published?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The destruction of the commonwealth is not involved in this vote. The budget for this organization was fixed by all governments of the commonwealth at a figure of something around $100,000 until it is decided what the future of the committee should be. It was also decided that Canada's contribution toward that $100,000 would be about 16 or 17 per cent, and that percentage is reflected in this vote. That is all there is to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
108.	United Nations expanded program for technical assistance to underdeveloped countries, $850,000.
Solon Earl Low: I wonder if the minister could answer the plea made by the hon. member for Mount Royal and indicate what moneys could be used under this vote.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the vote for United Nations technical assistance. The target this year is $20 million, and it was felt that the appropriate Canadian contribution would be $850,000. That can be used for technical assistance in any underdeveloped country requiring such assistance, which would include Israel. It might well be that our part of this general vote could and would be used for assistance along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Mount Royal.
There is no special vote for assistance to Israel nor is it possible to include that state in the assistance given under the Colombo plan. We have already indicated our feelings toward Israel and have made certain goods available to that country. We have tried to assist them in that way quite apart from the fact that individual Canadians have rendered a good deal of financial assistance to this new state. The technical assistance program, toward which we are contributing this amount, could be used for that purpose. No doubt if Israel made application, the application would be considered.


John Horne Blackmore: I take it that this is to assist only in connection with production.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It takes other forms such as the exchange of scholarships and fellowships, the sending of experts by the United Nations to help set up public administration organizations or civil service organizations, social welfare schemes and such things as hydroelectric developments.
Supply-External Affairs


John Horne Blackmore: I take it that up to the present there has been no technical assistance in the way of finding markets.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All these schemes can be related to the economic progress of the country which is being assisted, and that should enable the country to find its own markets.


John Horne Blackmore: I do not wish to hold up the discussion but let me suggest to the minister that the men who have to do with this particular organization should become thoroughly proficient in social credit so that when they go to other nations they can teach them how to consume and how to distribute.
. Mr. Pearson: I shall be glad to bring that suggestion to the attention of the director-general of the United Nations technical assistance program, who is a Canadian, originally from the west.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International civil aviation organization-
109.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates. $76,046.
Howard Charles Green: I understand there is to be an increase in the amount used for this purpose. Would the minister indicate whether I am right?


Lester Bowles Pearson: A further amount will be required as a result of recent discussions with the organization. An additional amount of $141,000 will be provided in the supplementary estimates.


Howard Charles Green: In effect that additional amount is being paid to outbid other countries which wanted the headquarters moved from Montreal.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not put it quite that way. The organization felt that the expenses of operation in Montreal were very high as compared with the expenses of similar international organizations in other countries. There was a good deal of discussion in the organization about whether it would be more economical to move the headquarters to one of those countries where such facilities are provided sometimes free of charge. As the result of this and as the result of an approach made to the Canadian government it was felt that we would be justified in making a further grant of $130,000 toward the rental of their building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International joint commission-
110.	To provide for preliminary studies and surveys of the mid-western watershed, $10,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I support this item, but I would ask the minister for an explanation.

Supply-External Affairs Why is it that we find different votes for different surveys by the international joint commission under different departments? For instance, the one concerning the Columbia river basin is found under resources and development?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When a new reference is made to the international joint commission it has been the practice in the interest of convenience to have the Department of External Affairs pay the amount required for the first year. Any further amounts required are provided by the department directly concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Terminable services-
113.	Colombo program for technical co-operation in south and southeast Asia, $400,000.
John Horne Blackmore: I take it that this plan also has to do purely with production. These peoples should be taught how to consume and distribute. May I suggest once more in all seriousness that every organized community in the world ought to know a little about how to distribute and the system that will teach them how to distribute is social credit. I suggest that the minister also give some advice to these people to have their experts thoroughly versed in social credit rather than in orthodox finance which has already proved itself to be worthless and a failure.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: If the minister is going to put in a word for social credit I suggest that he bring the Regina manifesto to their attention as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
114.	To provide for and authorize grants or loans to governments of countries in south and southeast Asia to assist in the economic development of such countries, and special administrative expenses in connection therewith, $25,000,000.
A. Earl Catherwood: The minister said this morning that his department had been in consultation with Indian officials, and I should like to know what the department has in mind in connection with the sharing of this $25 million. Is it going to be handled in the same way it was handled last year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the vote for the Colombo plan and, as the committee knows, is for $25 million to carry on the work which we began last year and which proved so valuable as a means of strengthening the relations between the countries concerned and also for practical purposes in those countries. This year we are asking for the same amount. How that amount will be divided among the countries concerned is now under discussion. Last year $15 million of the $25 million was
;Mr. Herridge.]

used in India and $10 million in Pakistan. Of the $15 million that went to India the committee knows that $10 million was used for the purchase of wheat.
We are now discussing with the representatives of the Indian government how the money that will be allocated to them if this vote is passed will be spent. It is impossible to come to any final conclusion on the matter until we know exactly how much will be available for India because this year we propose to make a part of the $25 million available to Ceylon. Therefore it is difficult for me to say anything more definite than that. In the preliminary discussions with India-and we have also had preliminary discussions with Pakistan and Ceylon in connection with projects for those countries:-it is interesting to note that India has shown great interest in using as much as possible of the funds which may be made available to them for the purchase of wheat.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is pretty close to six o'clock and realizing that it is desired to get these estimates through before we rise I will not take time to speak at any length on the item. But we would like to make it very clear once again how strongly we of this group support item 114, as well as items 113 and 108 which have already been passed. We feel that not only is the expenditure of money in this way to help improve the living standards of our fellow humans in other parts of the world good in itself but also that it is one of the best expenditures possible for the maintenance of the peace of the world. We strongly support these votes. We would be glad to see them much higher, and we hope the spending of them in the most useful and effective ways will be pursued diligently by the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I just say in that connection, because I think it is of some importance, that at the recent meeting in Karachi the Indian minister of finance said:
The significance of such friendly assistance-
He was referring to the Colombo plan.
-far transcends its material value.
The minister for economic affairs of Pakistan said at the same meeting:
It is becoming increasingly clear that the members of the plan work as members of a family, unified with the idea of helping each other, and in the spirit of give and take there is no feeling of superiority attached to the act of giving or inferiority tainting the act of receiving.
The other day in the Australian house of representatives their secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Casey, said-and I hope I may be pardoned for reading it:
In the current financial year, Canada made a contribution of $25 million and will give a further $25

million for 1952-53. I would draw particular attention to the welcome and farsighted generosity of the Canadian contribution, bearing in mind the geographical distance of Canada from south and southeast Asia.


Solon Earl Low: That of course is just another example of what decency of treatment between people and countries will do, and until we establish an all-round program and policy of decency of treatment we just cannot expect to have peace. I certainly go along with all others in the committee in supporting the Colombo plan. It has done a grand job.


John Horne Blackmore: If the Colombo plan were using social credit there would be remarkable effects. You would not only have the sayings of these men; you would have wonderful achievements.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
115.	Contribution to the provisional inter-governmental committee for the movement of migrants from Europe, $154,600.
Howard Charles Green: Item 115 is a new vote. Will the minister explain it to the committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is an item for an intergovernmental organization for the movement of migrants from Europe in order to continue some of the work that was being done by the international refugee organization. When that organization was wound up last year it was felt it would be in the general interests of refugees and of receiving countries if some of the machinery, especially the shipping machinery that had been built up under the international refugee organization, could be kept in being. Therefore this temporary organization was formed for that purpose. Its emphasis is placed on assistance to migrants from Europe to overseas countries. For that purpose certain ships that previously worked for IRO are being retained by this organization.	.


Howard Charles Green: Will there be a vote each year or will there be just the one for the present year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is just for this year. I do not know how long this organization will be required. During the course of the year it will be decided whether it will be continued for another year in the light of the results achieved.


George Randolph Pearkes: Have the ships the minister referred to been purchased by Canada? Were they Canadian ships before?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The ships I have referred to were rented by IRO from various ship owners, and that is being continued. They have not been purchased.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Private Bills
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.

Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: Mr. Speaker, I should like leave to revert to motions in order to table a statement on behalf of the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member leave to revert to motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph-Adéodat Blanchette: I should like to table, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, a statement outlining Canada's defence program in relation to the estimates for the year 1952-53. This statement is along the same lines as that tabled in connection with last year's estimates. Copies in English and in French are immediately available for distribution.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
On the order:
Second reading of Bill No. 338, for the relief of Marie Jacqueline Michelle Major Valiquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Mr. H. W. Winkler (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of this house I should like to move the second reading of all the divorce bills on the order paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lisgar suggests that we take all these divorce bills for second reading in one motion. This would affect Bills Nos. 338 to 345 and also divorce Bills Nos. 348 to 362 inclusive. Has the hon. member the consent of this house to proceed in this manner?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SECOND READINGS
Howard Waldemar Winkler: that the following bills be read the second time:
Bill	No.	338,	for	the	relief of Marie
Jacqueline Michelle Major Valiquette.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 339, for the relief of May Clara
Taylor Di Biasio.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 340, for the relief of Regina Joan Lee Mills.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	341,	for	the	relief of Violette
Chartrand Fairon.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill	No.	342,	for	the	relief of Doreen
Elizabeth Lawton Batty.-Mr. Winkler.

Private Bills
Bill No. 343, for the relief of Norma Meldrum Drysdale McGown.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 344, for the relief of Jean Elizabeth Wood Jackson.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 345, for the relief of Louisa Ryan Heke.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 348, for the relief of Maurice Speyer.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 349, for the relief of Lorraine Souillet Heaven.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 350, for the relief of Charlotte Elizabeth Johnston Rawson.

Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 351, for the relief of Eleanor Luba Hirschfield Mott.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 352, for the relief of Marguerite Anne Sweeting Russell.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 353, for the relief of Amy Stirling Price.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 354, for the relief of Jean Irene Ross Roche.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 355, for the relief of Regina Landry Brouillard.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 356, for the relief of Jean-Paul Malo.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 357, for the relief of Robert Arthur Reeve.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 358, for the relief of Joyce Mary Barton Vallis.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 359, for the relief of Lawrence Edward James.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 360, for the relief of Helene Mary Reusing Hutchins.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 361, for the relief of Charles Lewis Lipton.-Mr. Winkler.
Bill No. 362, for the relief of Joseph Kovacs. -Mr. Winkler.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At this stage of the session I shall not object to a number of bills being grouped in one motion, for second reading, but I do wish to register once again, and I shall probably do it again and again and again, my protest against these divorce bills being handled in this way. I repeat my earnest hope that one of these days we shall, as a parliament, decide to deal with these bills and any others that may continue to come before us in a more proper manner than is the present practice.
With respect to this group of bills covered by the motion made by the member for Lisgar, may I say that if it turns out that any of these cases is contested in the committee on miscellaneous private bills, we would of course want to review those cases more fully when they get back to the committee of the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bills read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.
fMr. Winkler.]

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 62, to incorporate Boundary Pipeline Corporation -Mr. Larson-Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.
On section 1-Incorporation.
George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time in nearly two years that I have made a statement on one of these bills which are presented to us for the purpose of incorporating a pipe line company. I do so for the purpose of indicating my opposition to this particular application and to the procedure which is followed in dealing with matters of this kind. In fact, my remarks are as much directed to the procedure as to the specific purpose of the bill before us. There is no pretence whatever that the purpose of this discussion is anything else than the hope that it will not be possible to deal with this bill during this session. After all, that should be frankly stated. It is the only device that can be employed to prevent the passage of a measure which certain members think should not pass, and where it appears that there is to be no real attempt to place before the house any sound argument in favour of the adoption of the bill that has been presented.
I have listened to the arguments that have been made against the adoption of this measure. I think those arguments are sound.
I think the arguments should appeal to the judgment and common sense of the members. There has been no serious attempt on the part of anyone to meet the arguments that have been put forward. The attitude seems to be simply this: The bill is before the house, and we are not going to say anything more. We hope you will not be able to keep on talking against the measure and that in due course, without any argument in its support, it will come to a vote and we are sure that a majority will support it. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is a reflection on the whole house. I suggest it is a reflection on the methods of this house, and it is a reflection on the manner in which the members are called upon to deal with what should be serious business.
My remarks are prompted particularly by the fact that when this bill was before the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, the evidence from expert witnesses who were available was cut off arbitrarily by a motion presented to that committee. On Thursday, April 24 of this year, at a meeting of that standing committee the hon, member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Cannon) moved that sufficient evidence had been obtained for the committee to

decide as to the economic practicability of the pipe line under consideration, and that the question be put on the preamble without further examination of the witness. After discussion and the question having been put on the motion, it was agreed to on division. The record of the committee then sets out the division, and I see that the motion was supported by a substantial majority. The members of the opposition opposed it, with the support of one Liberal member of that committee.
That motion was not only to the effect that other witnesses should not be heard, but that the committee had heard enough from a particular witness. That witness was a man who was giving reasons why he thought it was not sound economically and otherwise to proceed with this particular pipe line. That course having been adopted, and the House of Commons now being asked to pass a bill which was denied an adequate examination before the committee, I do not think that the members of the house, without the opportunity to hear witnesses, should be called upon to deal with it.
I wish to speak about the procedure. I hope the extended discussion which has taken place on this measure may serve to impress upon the government the desirability of another procedure in dealing with the issuing of charters for pipe-line companies. I think it is appropriate to review exactly what it is the House of Commons is being asked to support by the motion now before us. We start with the fact that this bill is to incorporate a pipe-line company under the Pipe Lines Act which was passed by the House of Commons on April 30, 1949. That act, which is the overriding act empowering pipe-line companies to carry on their corporate activities, gives certain powers to any company incorporated to operate a pipe line. I think the members of the house should recognize how far they are being asked to go when they support a measure of this kind. Section 7 of the Pipe Lines Act sets out the powers which automatically are conferred upon any company which receives incorporation in this manner and then obtains authority to proceed with pipe-line activities by permission of the government and the board of transport commissioners who must pass upon the application.
I wish to read these into the record because they indicate the extremely wide powers that any such corporation receives. I am inclined to think hon. members generally have not been impressed with what it is they are being called upon to do. Section 7 of the Pipe Lines Act reads as follows:
7. A company may. for the purposes of its undertaking, subject to the provisions of this act and the special act.
Boundary Pipeline Corporation
(a)	enter into and upon any crown land without previous licence therefor, or into or upon the land of any person, living in the intended route of its line, and make surveys, examinations or other necessary arrangements on such land for fixing the site of the line, and set out and ascertain such parts of the land as are necessary and proper for the line:
(b)	purchase, take and hold of and from any person any land or other property necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its line and alienate, sell or dispose of any of its land or property that for any reason has become unnecessary for the purpose of the line;
(c)	construct, lay, carry or place its line across, upon or under the land of any person on the located line of the company pipe line;
(d)	join its line with the pipe line of any other person at any point on its route;
(e)	construct, erect and maintain all necessary and convenient roads, buildings, stations, depots, wharves, docks and other structures, and construct, purchase and acquire machinery and other apparatus necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its line;
(f)	construct, maintain and operate branch lines, and for that purpose exercise all the powers, privileges and authority necessary therefor, in as full and ample a manner as for a company pipe line;
(g)	from time to time alter, repair or discontinue the works or any of them, mentioned in this section, and substitute others in their stead;
(h)	transport oil or gas by company pipe line and regulate the time and manner in which oil or gas shall be transported, and the tolls to be charged therefor; and
(i)	do all other acts necessary for the construction, maintenance and operation of its line.
Those are immensely wide powers, Mr. Chairman; yet those are the powers which automatically are conferred by the Pipe Lines Act upon any company which receives a charter under a bill such as that which is now before the house. I do not think hon. members should be asked to confer powers of that kind under which they can seize property that we do not even know yet by actual description. If this company is incorporated and if it should receive the permission of the government and the board of transport commissioners to proceed with the operation of the pipe line, it will have wide powers of expropriation which should never, under any circumstances, be given to unknown people, for an unknown destination, and over an unknown route. I cannot think of anything which would indicate less regard for the responsibility of members of parliament than to give such wide and sweeping powers with no rigid definition of the route this pipe line would follow.
On a number of occasions when other pipe lines have been dealt with we have learned that these companies are quite ready to change the route, depending on what they think is most likely to meet with approval. They have the power to change the route. We are therefore asked, with all the responsibility and the authority of parliament, to confer these
3522	HOUSE OF
Boundary Pipeline Corporation sweeping powers upon unknown people who acquire their rights under a charter issued in this way.
On an earlier occasion, some two years ago, I suggested a procedure which would be in keeping with the ordinary practices in matters of this kind and which would take away from the House of Commons and the Senate the pretence of exercising judgment with regard to something about which we have not sufficient evidence to exercise proper judgment. The procedure to which I refer would be simple. It would be for the government to introduce a simple amendment to the Pipe Lines Act. It need be only a single section which would say that the kind of company described in the Pipe Lines Act and which would obtain the powers conferred by the Pipe Lines Act would be a company which obtained an ordinary charter under the dominion Companies Act. It might be suggested by someone that this would be exercising still less control over the incorporation of companies of this nature. I should like to see no pretence whatever that real control is exercised. It is true that this debate has provided an opportunity to place before the committee arguments in support of a policy of Canadian priority in relation to the use of our resources. I submit that such a policy can be expressed, and established in some other way. I submit that a policy could be declared by a resolution, and that such a policy would guide those who are called upon to exercise their discretion in permitting these pipe line companies to carry on business. We do not yet know whether this company would be allowed to carry on business if it did get a charter. For that reason, amongst others, I do not think we should be granting a charter, which has some real money value the moment it is granted by this house, when we have no way of knowing whether or not that charter is ever going to give anyone the right to proceed.
I hope the time that has been occupied in discussing ihis subject for the purpose of indicating that a very substantial number of members do not want to see charters granted in this way will impress upon the government the desirability of such an amendment. That does not mean that a company which obtains a charter under the dominion Companies Act can proceed with a pipe line simply by virtue of the charter. It means that a company which obtains a charter in that way will then require to obtain permission to proceed with the operation of a pipe line by an application to the board of transport commissioners. It still must obtain permission from the government of Alberta if the gas or oil comes from


the soil of Alberta. It must also obtain permission from the dominion government, and therefore the granting of a charter under the Companies Act would still leave the matter for decision by those authorities who now have no opportunity to exercise any real judgment as to whether or not the applicant in question should have the right to carry on business.
We would save time, and there would be no pretence about parliament having passed judgment. In that case any number of people who wanted to get charters could get them; and each would meet fairly before the board of transport commissioners and before the governments concerned and be able to present evidence in the ordinary way. No one would be left out in the cold. Anybody who was prepared to pay for a charter could get that charter, and the whole question would then be one for a semi-judicial body, the board of transport commissioners, to decide, with subsequent decisions by the dominion and provincial governments concerned. That, it seems to me, is a sensible, businesslike procedure which is in keeping with the general practices in regard to matters of this kind. It is one which would take away from parliament something that is occupying a great deal of time unnecessarily, and which I am sure will continue to occupy a great deal of time unnecessarily if this procedure is still followed.
I made that proposal before; in fact I made it on March 20, 1950. I hope that now, in 1952, the government may decide that this would be a better way of proceeding. If on the other hand the government has some other alternative, I certainly would be very happy to support any method which would take away from the parliament of Canada the pretence of passing judgment upon something in regard to which we are not furnished adequate information.
There is another point in regard to this matter that I should like to discuss. I should like to discuss the merits of this particular application and indicate why I think it is desirable that there be some clearly declared policy in regard to matters of this kind. This particular application is for a charter to construct and operate a gas pipe line from the province of Alberta into the province of Manitoba; and it is disclosed by those who have argued in support of the measure that the pipe line will then proceed into the .United States.
May I emphasize once again that I for one ; im not arguing against the export to the Jnited States in sensible and reasonable [uantities of any raw material or commodity produced in this country. Nevertheless I

do believe that the first concern of the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada should be the advancement of Canada and the employment of our own resources to the greatest possible advantage of our own people. Just a few days ago I presented an argument in this house in regard to wider employment of some of our raw materials in Canada. I was interested and somewhat surprised to find that argument summarized in the opinion of some people, as an argument in support of a ban on export. Hansard will disclose that I suggested no such thing; that I suggested the very contrary. I am saying that now simply to emphasize that whatever argument I am putting forward, it is not an argument in regard to a ban on this or any other raw material or natural resource that we possess, where it is in our interest that we export it. What I am saying is that the course we adopt should assure that we shall gain the greatest possible advantage from our own resources here in Canada. With that thought in mind let us see what the situation actually is.
Both Ontario and Quebec through their governments have indicated their desire to have natural gas from the province of Alberta. That has been stated without any reservations by members of the governments of these two provinces. Arguments that were put forth in support of this measure in no way dispose of the argument that was presented on the other side, that if this particular charter were granted it would for the time being prevent the construction of another pipe line to carry natural gas to the east. Therefore one of the questions to be decided as a matter of principle is whether or not this House of Commons, if it is called upon to exercise some measure of judgment, is or is not going to say that it concurs in the representations made by these provincial governments and is willing to take a course which will assure the transmission of natural gas for use in these two provinces.
Ontario already is using a very substantial amount of natural gas coming into the province from the United States. For that very reason it would be unreasonable to suggest that we should not be prepared to co-operate at different points in Canada where that co-operation seems reasonable. I think it would be very reasonable for the government of Canada to discuss with the government of the United States appropriate exchanges of natural gas at different points along the border.
The Canadian government knows that at this time there is an application before the appropriate authority in Washington to permit the export of natural gas into Ontario, a
Boundary Pipeline Corporation province which has been using natural gas from the United States for some time. Actually there is a contract now in existence under which gas is transmitted from the Texas panhandle up to Ontario; and that contract calls for the delivery of more than five billion cubic feet of natural gas a year. That however has not yet been formally approved by the authority in Washington which deals with matters of this kind. Therefore the whole situation in regard to that export is in a state of uncertainty.
I think this is the very kind of thing that could be dealt with properly by discussions between the two governments. Where there is any possibility of export, in a case of this kind, it should be as the result of negotiation and arrangement of that nature rather than by a hit or miss process such as that indicated in the measure now before us.
If a pipe line should carry natural gas through to Ontario and Quebec, that would not mean Ontario would be denied any natural gas for which it might have contracted with the United States. It would simply mean that the very much larger quantities that are required than those they can hope to obtain from the United States would become available right across the great industrial areas of northern and eastern Ontario. Also it would mean that this gas would become available in the busy industrial centres of Quebec.
Still, if that were a large pipe line, export at different points might be arranged by consultation between the governments of Canada and the United States. But if we are going to deal with this on its merits, then I submit that the first pipe line to the east which should be approved is a pipe line that carries its gas into the large industrial provinces of Ontario and Quebec so as to assure to these provinces this natural resource which will help so much to develop the whole country.


Mr. Blue:: What about Bruce?


George Alexander Drew: I was under the impression that Bruce is still in Ontario, and I hope it will continue to remain in Ontario. I had not heard that it had declared its independence at any time. But I would certainly hope that the fine county of Bruce, along with all the other counties in Ontario and Quebec, would benefit from the available supply of this cheap and very efficient fuel.
I have heard the comment during this debate that this is an argument in favour of Ontario and Quebec. I have heard it said that it does not very much benefit the intervening provinces in western Canada, nor does it greatly benefit the maritime provinces. Well, we cannot change geography,

Boundary Pipeline Corporation much though we might like at times to do so. We cannot change the fact that there would still be a very long pipe line to the maritime provinces, if it were to be carried down there.
Nevertheless the area within which gas can be transmitted economically is increasing all the time, and it is conceivable that at some time even that might happen. I should be more inclined to hope that some time in the not too distant future the liquefaction of coal, or other employments of coal in the maritime provinces, might give them the advantage of their own raw materials which are in such abundance in those provinces in a form that could be changed into another type of fuel, and then into either gas or electricity. However, that is something for the future, something to consider at another time.
So far as this measure is concerned, I do submit we should not overlook the fact that the very large population of Ontario and Quebec provides a sound commercial outlet for the natural gas from Alberta. It has been noticeable that during the course of these discussions members of this house from Alberta have concurred in that suggestion. They have indicated their own opinion that this pipe line is not a sound proposition, and that if we are going to be called upon to deal with matters of this kind in the House of Commons, then the charters to be granted should have the interests of Canada as their first consideration.
I would hope also that we would bear in mind that when we strengthen the productive capacity of any one part of Canada, we strengthen the whole economy of Canada and increase the possibility that this country as a whole may advance, and that there may be an improvement in the situation in every part of the country.
With that thought in mind I would hope that in some way independently of this measure a clearly stated policy would be adopted by the House of Commons and the parliament of Canada under which, in the employment of our resources, we would place the interests of Canada and its people first, while at all times expressing our willingness to export resources on a reasonable basis so long as we do not limit our own opportunity for expansion and growth by so doing.
When I began these remarks I left no doubt that I was not making my argument in the expectation that it would change the opinion of those who have presented the measure to the house. I do hope that the absurdity of wasting so much time to prevent the

adoption of an unwise measure will impress upon the government the wisdom of following some other course in dealing with applications of this nature.
I would hope that when this session comes to an end-and I certainly hope this bill has not been passed at that time-the government might decide that before we meet again there will be some provision for the issuing of a charter in a simple manner, and a procedure which would place anyone wishing to obtain a charter on an equal basis when appearing before the board of transport commissioners and the governments affected. They would then make the decision as to who is going to have the right to build and operate a pipe line. I will go further and say that instead of continuing this debate for the remainder of this session-I say this in all earnestness-the government should consider introducing a simple amendment to the Pipe Lines Act along the lines I have advocated. It could be a brief amendment adding a section providing that a company referred to in the act shall be a company with a charter obtained under the dominion Companies Act. I am reasonably sure that the members of this house would support such an amendment. It would take much less time to deal with that very effective amendment than will be wasted if this bill is brought up for discussion once again.


Mr. Howe:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise for the purpose of joining with the official opposition in its filibuster against this bill, but I think a few words should be said. I must say that in my seventeen years' experience in this house, it is the first time I have known a leader of the opposition to talk out a private member's bill, but I suppose such things can happen.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Chairman, I am not going to interrupt the hon. minister except-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


George Alexander Drew: I am not going to interrupt the minister except to point out that I spoke on a private member's bill two years ago at the same time with the minister.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I am speaking at the same time with the leader of the opposition and probably for the same purpose. The suggestion is that it is all wrong for members of the House of Commons to examine the provisions of these bills, that the Pipe Lines Act should be changed so that any company incorporated under the Companies Act would have these rights. We all know that all that is necessary to be incorporated under the Companies Act is to

file the necessary documents with the Secretary of State, pay the necessary fee, and then the incorporators would have everything they are asking this parliament to give them, by this bill.
Why not do that? That procedure has been considered. The reason was referred to by the leader of the opposition. Incorporation under the Pipe Lines Act carries with it the right of expropriation. It has been the practice of this parliament since confederation to be very jealous of granting incorporations that carry with them the right of expropriation.
Hon. members are aware that anyone wishing a charter to build a railroad or lay track for a distance of more than seven miles must come to this parliament with a private bill. Why? Because by the terms of the Transport Act the authority for laying of that track carries with it the right of expropriation. Anyone who wishes to build a bridge across international waters must come to this parliament to be incorporated because he is asking for rights over international waters, which rights are very jealously guarded by parliament.
I quite agree with the hon. leader that any reputable company that is properly financed, that is composed of reputable people and that has an objective that is reasonably sound should be able to obtain incorporation by a private bill approved by this House of Commons. That has always been my contention. I ask hon. members to remember that all this bill gives is incorporation; it does not grant any rights whatever to the company except the right which the leader of the opposition says should be granted as a matter of course under the Companies Act.
I do not agree that anyone should be able to go to the Secretary of State and by virtue of the fact that he files certain documents obtain an incorporation as a pipe line company when such incorporation may lead to obtaining the power of expropriation. It has always been the belief of the government that anyone who wants the right of eminent domain, the right of expropriation, should be compelled to come to parliament where he can be examined by members of parliament or by anyone who has a particular interest in the incorporation. The member representing that particular district should have the right to ask the incorporators any question he wishes to ask and obtain a satisfactory answer.
I believe that is a desirable safeguard. The incorporators of pipe line companies should be compelled to appear before a committee of parliament, to show what their interests are, to indicate their intentions, to prove {heir
Boundary Pipeline Corporation financial bona fides and, in short, to establish themselves as a reputable company.
You say, "That is perfectly reasonable. We pass several private bills of that type every session." We have run into two long filibusters in connection with pipe lines. One bill was before this parliament for two sessions before it was finally passed. That was the second bill. It is said that there is something wrong about this bill, but it is exactly like a bill which gave the same privileges and set out the same purposes of incorporation, which was passed at a previous session. That bill had to do with a pipe line from Alberta to Winnipeg and then southward, and there was no difficulty about it. But in connection with this bill we have had this blockade lasting for several months.
I do not want to impute motives, but it seems to me that this opposition is really not opposition to a bill. There is nothing wrong with the proposed incorporation, as the leader of the opposition admits. This is opposition in favour of an incorporation which was granted previously. That was obviously the case two years ago, admittedly so. At that time it was contended that there was a perfectly good Canadian company that had been incorporated to build a pipe line from Alberta westward and then down across the international border, so why incorporate another company that would be a competitor.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Howard Charles Green: I will sit down when I am told to by the chairman and not by a backbencher.


Louis-René Beaudoin: Will the hon. member
please state his question of privilege.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Trade and
Commerce is quite wrong. If he will remember, the opposition was on the ground that the other-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a speech.


An hon. Member:: No privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The hon. member must
realize that he is not stating a question of privilege; he is merely trying to clarify a point in the minister's speech which in his opinion is not correct. That must be done either by the hon. member asking the minister if he may interrupt in order to clarify the point or by waiting until the minister has completed his statement and then clarifying the point himself.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman-

Boundary Pipeline Corporation


Clarence Decatur Howe: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has made one speech.


Howard Charles Green: On a question of privilege


Louis-René Beaudoin: Order; we cannot have two members holding the floor at the same time.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Have I the floor, Mr. Chairman?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I have told the hon. member that his question was not a question of privilege.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman-


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am willing to listen to an explanation.
' Mr. Green:	My question of privilege is
that the minister said that the opposition to the bill two years ago was in order to prevent competition. That was not the case at all. The purpose of the opposition was to prevent lines being built down through the United States with only branch lines to serve Canada.


Mr. Fournier (Hull):: That is not a question of privilege.


Louis-René Beaudoin: The minister may now
speak.


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not wish to be contentious. I have not had the advantages of other members of the house. I did not attend the committee's hearings, and I have heard very little of the debate in the house. I do not even know who the sponsors of the bill are. I refer to the real interests behind this bill. I presume other people know, but I do not know. I have no interest in the bill; but I do want to voice objection to this sort of delaying tactics every time a pipe line bill comes before the house. The hon. leader has said everybody is entitled to incorporate. Perhaps they are. I would not object to that statement; but before anybody is incorporated I say they should come before a committee of the house and show their bona fides. This company has done that. All companies asking incorporation must do so under the method of procedure specified by the Pipe Lines Act. I do not wish to undermine that procedure. I believe it is the correct procedure and I deplore the activities of the official opposition in blockading this second pipe line bill that has been subjected to this treatment.


Mr. Shaw:: Mr. Chairman, though not a
member of the official opposition I feel there are two or three things I should like to say with respect to the bill now before us. Certainly no one can accuse me of having participated in a filibuster, because I have not taken any time in the house previously in connection with this matter or any other comparable measure which has come before


us. I was particularly interested in the observations made by the leader of the opposition during the concluding portion of his remarks. He referred to the absence of a national policy with respect to the question of gas export. My personal conviction is that in the absence of such a national policy, clear cut and definitely defined, we have encountered the difficulties which are before us now and have been before us during the weeks and months that have gone by.
A moment ago the minister indicated that when a company desiring incorporation appears before a committee of the house every member is provided with an opportunity to secure definite information with respect to the specific route and to raise whatever objections he may desire to raise. I take exception to that statement. I am not aware of the fact that this company filed a specific proposal as to route.


Clarence Decatur Howe: On a question of privilege, if the hon. member will let me explain, I did not say that. All a company comes to this house for is the purpose of incorporation. The matter of the route is a question for the board of transport commissioners.


Frederick Davis Shaw: That is true, but did not the minister assert that when such a company appeared before the committee of the house members were afforded an opportunity to raise objections to any such specific acts of expropriation, let us say, which may affect the particular districts they represent? Certainly my experience leads me to the conclusion that no such opportunity is actually afforded at all. When a company appears before a committee of the house it is for the express purpose of putting before the committee a general idea of what the company proposes to do with respect to export, and information relative to the method of financing the company's operations. Beyond that I am very much afraid that members of the committee are left pretty much in the dark.
My fundamental interest in this matter at the present time stems from the fact that when the master pipe line measure was being considered by a committee of the other place the attorney general of my province appeared before that committee and pleaded with them to lay down regulations which would make it necessary for a company of this kind to appear before a semi-judicial body for the purpose of securing the right to incorporate under the Companies Act. Mr. Maynard, the attorney general of Alberta, in anticipation of some of the very difficulties we have encountered since that time, pleaded with

the committee to give favourable consideration to his proposal. I well recall the reception his proposal met before that committee, because I witnessed it. It was turned down. To my mind so much of the difficulty we have encountered since that time stems from that very fact.
So far as safeguards in connection with expropriation are concerned, certainly the board of transport commissioners could take every precaution to determine whether the company applying for incorporation was complying with all the regulations with respect to expropriation or anything else, as a matter of fact, covered by any legislation existing in Canada today. I agree with those who have laid down the principle that, so far as the export of gas from one part of Canada to another part and thence elsewhere is concerned, we should give prime consideration to the requirements of our own country first. I am not one of those who assert that that involves the piping of gas from Alberta to the maritimes or, as a matter of fact, even to the province of Quebec or conceivably even to the province of Ontario, because I recognize that there is merit in a policy whereby we might exchange gas with our United States friends to the south.
Certainly we have to approach the matter from the economic point of view when making a decision in that respect. I think my own province is quite justified in the position it has taken with respect to meeting its own requirements first, and certainly I believe the rest of us are justified in asserting that we should see to it that the requirements of the Canadian people are met as far as possible. With respect to the bill now before us, I have no particular interest in the persons involved but I suggest it is unfortunate that we followed the course of action which we adopted in 1949 because it led to this difficulty. I think even now it is not [DOT]too late for the government to introduce amendments to the master pipe line legislation which would enable us to refer these applications to a semi-judicial body-I have already mentioned the board of transport commissioners-for the purpose of dealing with them instead of doing it in the House of Commons. I feel confident that just as long as we have applications of this kind *coming before the house, just so long are we going to encounter the type of debate we have had during the past several weeks and months. It is nine o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
Section stands.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The time allotted for private bills having expired, the house will resume consideration of the business which was interrupted at six o'clock.
Supply-Secretary of State SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Beaudoin in the chair.


DEPARTMENT OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
[Stage Direction]
433.	Departmental administration, $213,883.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether the fund which was referred to in the report tabled by the Prime Minister recently having to do with claims arising out of enemy action will be administered by his department. If so, what is the basis of the administration? There are not sufficient copies of that report for every member to have one, so I have not had an opportunity of looking at it yet. I want to know what the relationship is between that set-up and the war claims commission which has been operating under this department.


Mr. Bradley:: One of the recommendations of the Ilsley commission was the setting up of this war claims fund, and there was a further recommendation that a commission be set up to administer the fund.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Under whose department will that commission operate?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The commission, when set up, will make recommendations to the government about the matter, but no decision has yet been made about the commission.


Edmund Davie Fulton: May I ask the minister, then, whether we are any further along, and if so how much, toward a position where people who have lost all their assets as a result of enemy action-I refer particularly to those civilians who were prisoners of the Japanese- will be able to have some payment on their claims? When may we expect some final action?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The government still has to deal with this report. It consists of some hundred pages concerning how these claims are to be dealt with; and in the meantime of course, there has been the decision to set up this war claims fund.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister nothing further to say about it? I have asked him this question every time his estimates have come up, and each time we have been assured that the matter is being dealt as diligently as possible. Two years have gone by now, and some of these people are starving; in fact I do not know how some of them are living. Is there anything else the minister can say?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I believe we are very much closer. At least we have the report of Mr. Justice Ilsley, than whom I do not think we
3528	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State could get a more competent man in the dominion, and we have the war claims commission set up. Now we have to come to a decision on this report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
434.	Companies branch, $87,658.
Edmund Davie Fulton: I have some questions here, Mr. Chairman. I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he has received complaints from lawyers as to the length of time taken between the filing of an application for incorporation and the granting of that incorporation. My information is that as much as two months sometimes elapses between the filing of the application and the granting of the letters of incorporation.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It very often happens that there are errors in the documents filed, and frequently there has to be a conference between the department and the applicants before we can get these matters strengthened out. This sometimes takes time.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Has the minister information as to the number of applications at the present time which have not yet been granted?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have no figures at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I do not think there has been any undue delay.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: May I ask a
supplementary question? How long is the delay? Surely one could have an idea. What the minister says about there being data to verify is understandable, but the profession is surely entitled to a certain degree of service. We are entitled, as representing the public, to know what the story is.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: If the documents are completely in order and all the requirements of the law have been fulfilled, there might perhaps be a lapse of two or three weeks. If everything is not in order it will take an indefinite time, depending upon the length of time required to get things properly in order as the law requires.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Not wishing to misinterpret what the minister has said, may I ask him if we are to understand from the fact that it takes two or three weeks to process an application when things are in order, that if there be an error it would take some two or three weeks to find that there is an error and report back to the applicant?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Possibly, but possibly not as long as that.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I have no personal knowledge what the record was in the past, but is the fact that this two or three week period is necessary for processing an application an


indication that there is an accumulation of work at the branch which, in effect, amounts to its being in arrears?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There is a shortage in our staff, as a matter of fact, and the number of applications is increasing all the time. Perhaps there have been some delays, but not very many, except of course in cases where there are debatable points as between the applicant and the department. Then it may take months, and may involve a hearing in the minister's office. As a matter of fact, last week I had a hearing in the office which lasted over three hours.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I can quite understand that when a question arises there may have to be a hearing and delays, but that seems to be a matter in which the applicant ought to be able to look after himself. What bothers me is that, if I understand the minister, where things are in order and there is no hitch of any kind, where I take it it is just a routine matter, I was shocked to hear the minister say it would take two or three weeks. I would have hoped he could say just two or three days. If it takes two or three weeks, I should like to know what is actually involved. So far as I am aware there is nothing very much to be done.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is not possible to lay down any definite rule in cases of that kind, because what sometimes happens is that an emergency arises or there is some reason why there should be particular haste, and priority is given to a case of that kind. One cannot lay down any definite period within which an uncontested-let us put it that way-application will be finally processed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
435.	Trade marks branch, including a contribution of $2,400 to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $93,704.
Winfield Chester Scott McLure: This item refers to trade marks and so on. I notice that the total vote is $93,704, and the amount for stationery is nearly 11 per cent of that or $10,000 for office stationery, supplies and equipment. It would seem to be extremely high for office stationery, etc., when there is only $93,000 for the total office.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I think some $5,000 of that amount is for the printing of the new act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Will the minister explain what this item of $2,400 means, which is described as a contribution to the international office for the protection of industrial property?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is our contribution to the fund under the international Paris convention of which we are members.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
436.	Bureau for translations, $898,025.
Mr. Pouliot:: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that the French translations of the committee reports are available to hon. members a long time after they are published in English. The delay is so great that at times the reports are available only at a subsequent session. For instance, this year we had numerous reports of last year that we received only by the end of the session. The minister will realize that it is an abnormal situation.
I asked him if some suggestions had been made by the bureau for translations or by an organization called the technological institute of the French language. He said no. I will make a suggestion. The translators and perhaps the minister will be greatly surprised when they hear it. It is that we have too many printed reports of the evidence of the committees. The size of the reports we get is greater than that of Hansard. I wonder whether it is necessary to print everything that is said in the committees. It is true that there are some important committees; but when a member sits on a committee, he thinks the committee on which he is sitting is the most important of all the parliamentary committees. I would therefore ask the minister to suggest to his colleagues a considerable reduction in the number of printed reports of the evidence given before the committees.
Most of these reports remain unread by hon. members. It is physically impossible to read all of these reports. They are thrown into the wastepaper basket and this entails considerable waste. Will the minister, be kind enough to tell us today, tomorrow, the day after Monday or Tuesday what the cost is of the printing of the committee reports in English and in French? What are the committee reports that are published and what is the cost of the publication of those reports in both languages?
When I speak about the translation, what I say about it applies as well to the English edition of all those reports. Most of the time it is no more useful than is the French translation. Both should be suppressed. It is only in major cases that we should have printed reports of the committees.


William Joseph Browne: I believe the hon. member who has just spoken has struck upon one way in which expenditures may be reduced. It seems to me, as the hon.
Supply-Secretary of State member has said, that a committee member is chiefly interested in the committee on which he is serving. If he reads the evidence taken in that committee he is doing about all that he can do, if he is also to attend the sittings of the house. It is seldom that a member will read the reports of committees on which he is not serving. I therefore think the economy to which the hon. member refers could be effected with respect to both the English and the French editions.
I am not so sure, however, that this particular vote covers that matter at all. This has to do with salaries in the bureau for translations. Perhaps the Secretary of State can tell us where these people are employed and for what particular purpose. Is it in connection with the House of Commons and the Senate or elsewhere? While he is answering that question I wonder whether he would be good enough to explain why it is necessary, when they have 168 translators, to employ outside translators at a cost of $7,500?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell the hon. gentleman,-


Mr. Lennard:: The hon. member is not the minister.


Jean-François Pouliot: -because I am familiar with the situation. I fought the bill for the institution of the bureau for translations. It was brought in by a Conservative Secretary of State, Mr. Cahan, on the suggestion of a civil servant who was afraid of being fired. This civil servant created the position of superintendent of the bureau for translations in order to have a niche for himself there in case he was fired, but he was not. That was the only purpose of the establishment of the bureau for translations.
Moreover I will tell the hon. gentleman that the House of Commons has no control over the translators. Prior to that time the translators were under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker; that included the translators of the committee reports, the translators of Hansard and all the translators that were doing the work of the House of Commons. They were under the immediate jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker. That situation was changed. Now all the translators are in the bureau for translations under the immediate jurisdiction of the superintendent of the bureau for translations and then of the Secretary of State. We have no more to do with them. They are no longer the employees of the house. The same applies to the Hansard reporters. Prior to that time Hansard was under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. That was the purpose of the debates committee,
3530	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State of which I happened to be the chairman, without canvassing for that honour.


William Joseph Browne: You did not
find a niche.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. member. The debates committee has nothing to do now except to decide on the number of copies of Hansard that should be available to the members of parliament for free distribution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It had one meeting about four years ago.


Jean-François Pouliot: Prior to that time it had frequent meetings, because it was on the recommendation of that committee that the staff of Hansard was appointed. That committee also had jurisdiction over the translators. Now nothing of the sort exists. This situation has come about as a result of Conservative policy and legislation that was enacted when Mr. Bennett was in power.


William Joseph Browne: How long ago was that?


Jean-François Pouliot: It was in 1934. The record is downstairs. What I regret is that we no longer have authority over the employees of the house. The same thing is true with respect to the elevator men. They are not under the authority of Mr. Speaker; they are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Public Works. A number of those in the civil service besides the stenographers, the messengers, the members of the protective staff, the post office and others who do our work are not under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker. That is a situation which I think is abnormal. Moreover, in 1936 I introduced legislation to repeal the act establishing the bureau for translations. Unfortunately the Speaker at the time did not understand the thing very well and he declared the bill out of order. But here it is. The hon. member for St. John's West has the whole story.


William Joseph Browne: I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman. He does seem to be well informed on the subject; nevertheless I should like a reply from the Secretary of State.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Whatever may be the merits of the argument of the hon. member for Temis-cpuata, whose experience in this chamber extends over a much longer period than does mine, the fact still remains that parliament has charged this department with the responsibility for the bureau of translations. We have to look after all translations for parliament and for all government departments and agencies.


William Joseph Browne: Explain the
need of the outside translators.
[Mr. Pouliot.l


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That happens during the time parliament is in session, particularly, when we have more work to do than ordinarily.


Frank Exton Lennard: What work?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. member for St. John's West, but I think he -has things upside down. When dealing with the question of committee reports, I understood the hon. member to say that only the members who were on the committee read the reports; the others did not read them. It is the other way round. It is the members who are not on the committees who, in my opinion, need the reports.


William Joseph Browne: The hon. member said "need" not "read".


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I always read the reports to see what the hon. member for St. John's West has said on any question. If I did not read the reports I would not know.


William Joseph Browne: I cannot return the compliment.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have to look after whatever parliament gives us to translate. It is not our business to say what we should do. We do what we are told by parliament, and the additional men we engage during rush periods are in the nature of a temporary staff, as it were. They are paid for doing their work and we think we save money because we do not have them on the staff all the year round.


Frank Exton Lennard: The Secretary of State said that when the house was sitting they needed additional translators or additional staff. I should like to know what the translating staff have to do when the house is not sitting.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have to translate reports and correspondence from all departments of government throughout the year.


Mr. Knight:: Do the interpreters who interpret in regard to censorship of books for the Minister of National Revenue come under the jurisdiction of that minister, or under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State?


Louis-René Beaudoin: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member; I do not think the minister heard the question.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I did not hear the question, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Ross (Roy) Knight: There are certain interpreters used in the department that censors books and literature. That censorship is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue. My question was whether the interpreters under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State are used for that purpose,

or whether these interpreters are under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Revenue, who is supposed to be the censor of literature in Canada.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have nothing to do with interpreters. If any document has to be translated for any department of the government our bureau for translations does it.


Jean-François Pouliot: With the exception of the Senate, because the Senate has kept its jurisdiction over the translators and has set a good example to the House of Commons. In 1934 the House of Commons abandoned its rights over the translators, while the Senate kept them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps the hon. member for Temiscouata will not mind at this point if a part of what he said when he was on his feet before is corrected. He was correct, I would say, in telling us that the translators do not come under the jurisdiction of the House of Commons, but the other groups to whom he referred before, the reporters, the postal branch, the stenographic branch and so on, all come under the jurisdiction of the Speaker. They are listed under legislation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Not for their appointment, as it did before. That is what I am talking about.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is not what the hon. member said.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, yes. I used the English language. My hon. friend is quick enough to understand it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: It seems to me there is still a difference between two authorities, and I should like to have this matter straightened out. As I understood him, the hon. member for Temiscouata told us that we no longer have any control over the translators. On the other hand, the Secretary of State, as I understood him, said the translators did what the House of Commons ordered them to do. These two statements, if I correctly summarized them, seem to me to be in conflict.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We do the work that is sent to us to do.


Alphonse Fournier: A service department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
437.	Canada Temperance Act, $1,000.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Can the Secretary of State explain why this item of $1,000 for legal fees with respect to the Canada Temperance Act is necessary?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That item is there in connection with the Canada Temperance Act to be used if necessary in places where the
Supply-Secretary of State federal government has to foot the bill. I do not know whether anything will arise this year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What are these places? I am seeking information about this?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This act is now in force in only two places for which we have any responsibility. Should it be put in force in some other part of the country where we have responsibility we may have to use that vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the Secretary of State not think that we could wait until we put the act in force in these places where we have responsibility before asking parliament for this money, which is the basis for taxation which is struck?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No; we must have the vote there, because we do not know when the occasion is going to arise.


Edmund Davie Fulton: How long is it since an occasion has arisen?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Any place in Canada can put the act in force. If that should happen it may be that we shall incur expenses in connection with it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am sorry; I do not quite see the force of the minister's explanation. It would seem to me that if this is an act which it may become the responsibility of this government to enforce-the Secretary of State has not yet said how long it is since that situation has arisen, but I would gather that it is many years-surely the Department of Justice could make counsel available to his department to look after it. Surely the Department of Justice and the counsel available within that department could look after it. I must say that at the present time I cannot see why this item of $1,000 should be included for something that looks like a contingency which never arises.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This is a federal act. I understand that in Ontario the province bears the cost of enforcement wherever it may be necessary. However, there are parts of Canada where this is not done. Should the act be put into force in one of those places where the province will not bear the expense, then we have to do it. That is the reason for the vote.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Will the minister tell us how long it is since that situation has arisen? How long is it since the act has been put into force in any place where this government would have jurisdiction?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Until 1950 the act was in force in the county of Beauce, in the province of Quebec.

Supply-Secretary of State


Edmund Davie Fulton: I take it that it is not in force there now, and that there has been no need for this money in the last two years.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is right.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it not the minister's opinion that we should dispense with the item until we have notice that the act has been proclaimed elsewhere?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We cannot wait until the next session. If it happens to come into force in the meantime we have to enforce it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: This has been going on for years. How much is in the fund now?


Alphonse Fournier: It lapses every year.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes, it lapses each year.


Jean-François Pouliot: As you know very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Patent and copyright office-
439. Patent division (including the former patent record division), $840,391.
William Joseph Browne: I notice there is an increase in staff from 13 to 22 in the administration division, and that in the patent division there is an increase in number of staff from 138 to 146. Would the minister explain that? Then, in previous discussions of this kind we have been informed that the patent division is behind in its work. Is that still true?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This is simply a shift of salaries from one portion of the branch to another. The men are still doing the same work.


William Joseph Browne: Would the minister answer the other question I asked, as to the patent office being behind in its work. Is that true today?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: During the year we received 15,448 new applications, of which we disposed of 14,496. We have an increase of 952 pending applications. Considering that there was an increase to the extent of 1,124 new applications filed during the year, we think we have held our own fairly well.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I have here the report of the commissioner of patents for the year ended March 31, 1951. There are one or two things in it with which I am not familiar. In the fourth paragraph on page 10 there is reference to the London accord, and to German patents. Would the minister explain that paragraph and the significance of those expressions? What does the London accord cover, and do we come in under it?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Immediately after the war the London accord became an arrangement
[Mr. Bradley.)



under which citizens of allied countries could get, royalty free, the right to use wholly-owned German patents.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is a very brief and, I suppose, complete explanation. But I see on page 5 a reference to 11,000 claims under the international convention. Would the minister explain the significance of the international convention as distinct from the London accord?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Under the Paris convention some 50 or 60 countries by agreement among themselves made an arrangement whereby nationals of those several countries would have the same rights in other countries, in respect of industrial property, as in the country of origin.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Would the minister enumerate those who are included? Perhaps it would be easier to enumerate those who are not included.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: And would the minister please explain his answer? It is not very clear to us.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Roughly, in the western world it would include Canada, the United States, Mexico and Brazil. It includes also the western European countries. Roughly speaking, other countries would be out.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister has referred to 50 or 60 countries, and in enumerating them he referred to Canada, the United States, Brazil and European countries. That would be only about a dozen. Is South America out?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have not the figures here at the moment, but if my hon. friend wishes to have them I can get them for him accurately.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
440. Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $2,100 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $20,279.
Edmund Davie Fulton: Earlier this session I had occasion to bring to the attention of the minister a suggestion made by the exhibition association in Vancouver that at agricultural fairs where musical compositions are played, not for profit but simply for the entertainment of the crowds attending such fairs, they should be exempt from the payment of copyright fees on such musical works. Such musical pieces are played not for profit but for the entertainment of the people attending the fair, and it is contended that they should be exempt from the payment of the copyright fees on musical works.
I understand that attempts have been made several times in the past to frame a section

for the Copyright Act which would l;ave the effect of exempting agricultural fairs from the payment of royalties on music played under such conditions. Apparently those attempts were not successful, and I wonder if the minister would say what is the position today and what is the government's attitude toward the request of the Vancouver organization-they may have been joined by others-that the legislation should be amended to exempt agricultural fairs from the payment of royalties on the performance of copyrighted music.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I understand that this matter has been referred to the supreme court and apparently their views are not particularly favourable to the organization my hon. friend has mentioned. We are prepared to take this matter under consideration, but just what will be the result from the standpoint of policy I am not prepared to say at the moment. I understand there are cogent arguments which could be used against it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Did the minister say that the supreme court does not look with favour on the organization to which I have referred?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The Supreme Court of Canada gave a judgment, the interpretation of which was unfavourable.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps I could put it this way: the supreme court gave a judgment which interpreted the Copyright Act in a sense which was unfavourable to the organization.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That was some time ago and I understand that representations have since been made that this action be taken. I have received letters and I have written to the minister about it. I wonder if he could indicate what is the present position.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The position is unchanged but, as I said before, we are prepared to consider that particular point when we revise the act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: When will the revision of the act be undertaken?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Probably within the next twelve months.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: The total vote is $20,279, and over 20 per cent of that is for stationery. That seems completely out of line with the other items. They must be great letter writers.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There are a lot of copyright certificates to issue, and copies have to be issued as well.


Howard Charles Green: Has the department given any consideration to a problem which arises in connection with the importation of educational
55704-223J
Supply-Secretary of State and scientific books. I understand that books of that type come in duty free, but because of the provisions of our Copyright Act the Canadian purchaser of such books may not get the benefit. The Copyright Act permits the publisher of such a book to send these books to a Canadian agent and set whatever price he desires on them. I have had complaints from people in Vancouver that they have had to pay several dollars more for a book in Canada than it was selling for in the United States.
One man wrote to the United States for a book listed at a certain price but the publisher told him that he must get it from the Canadian agent, and he found several dollars was added arbitrarily to the United States price. In other words the copyright law is being used to extort higher prices from Canadian purchasers of these books, and that seems to me to be unreasonable.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I am not prepared to give the hon. member an answer right now, but we will look into it.


Howard Charles Green: It is most unfair that such a situation should be created by our copyright law which apparently gives such wide protection to the holder of a copyright that he in turn can hold up the public and deprive them of the benefit that should accrue from no duty being payable. I ask the minister to look into the whole situation.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I shall be glad to do so.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is this contribution to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works? Why do we have to contribute to this union?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We are members of the organization and we have to contribute to its upkeep.


Frank Exton Lennard: What is that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The Berne union.


George Randolph Pearkes: I wrote to the minister about a year ago stating that representations had been made to me that an amendment should be made to the act so that horticultural creations could be patented or copyrighted. Could the Secretary of State say what action has been taken? It seemed to me that the larger horticulturists were anxious to have this amendment, whereas it might prove detrimental to the smaller growers who would have great difficulty in paying for the necessary copyright for patents or whatever it is called.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This comes under patents, but I have no objection to answering. The matter is under consideration now. I believe a system of protection has been introduced in the

Supply-Secretary of State United States, and we are watching to see how they get along with it.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will you keep in mind the interests of the small growers?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


George Randolph Pearkes: It is so easy for a big firm to import a creation and get a copyright on it or a patent, as we call it, whereas the smaller man who has developed a floral creation cannot get a copyright. Therefore his interest is excluded from the development of that particular species. I do not think it is altogether a good thing to have this copyright included unless adequate safeguards are given.


Frank Exton Lennard: With respect to this union office, is the government a member of the union and what union is it?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is a union for the protection of industrial property.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It says literary and artistic works in the book of estimates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am sorry, but I have not understood about this union yet. Who are the members of the union? Is it international? Is it the various nations that are the members, or who are the members?


An hon. Member:: The check-off.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. This is the check-off.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Reading from the second
schedule to the Copyright Act, which is the revision convention signed at Berlin on November 13, 1908:	This convention, Mr. Chairman, was revised again at Rome in 1928 and at Brussels in 1948.
Convention for the purpose of revising the convention of Berne of the 9th September, 1886, the additional article and the Anal protocol attached to the same convention, and the additional act and the interpretative declaration of Paris of the 4th May, 1896; made on the 13th day of November, 1908, between His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Emperor of India; His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia ...	'
-and so on.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then as I understand it this is an international union of various nations. What do they do? Are they joined together to give mutual protection?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It renders mutual copyright protection in somewhat the same way as is done for industrial property.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Office of the Chief Electoral Officer-
56. Salaries and expenses of office, $60,963.
Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain the reason for the increase in this item?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I think the increase is caused mainly by the increase in salaries. I believe that is the main cause.


Howard Charles Green: I noticed on page 129 where the details of the vote are given-


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I might add that there is another cause. The employees of the chief electoral officer were brought under the jurisdiction of the civil service commission and that led to a readjustment of salaries upward. That also is responsible in part for the increase, and then there was the general increase in salaries.


Howard Charles Green: In the details we find an amount of $14,280 for casuals and others. That is an expense which was not incurred in the preceding year. What is the explanation for that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The explanation for that is that seven additional employees had to be taken on in connection with extra work the chief electoral officer had to do as a result of the change in the election act which resulted in the issuance of a new instruction book.


William Joseph Browne: The amount of $14,280 is for the coming year. Have they been taken on since April 1?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I believe they are employed now. I might add that the seven employees who were taken on have to divide into parcels and package some 300 tons of election material to be used whenever required.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will that be?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: You tell me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We thought we might catch you napping.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Three hundred tons seems like a lot of paper, but only a small portion of it has any real validity.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That will continue to be so.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I want to ask where the expenses appear for the work done in establishing the Northwest Territories election machinery. Do they appear under this item or under the Northwest Territories estimates?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: All expenses for elections are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It was said in the house the other night that under the new legislation for the Northwest Territories the chief electoral officer and his officials have spent some considerable time setting up election machinery for the first time in the Northwest Territories. There must have been extra expense for that work. It must have taken his time and probably the time of many of his staff. They must also have had travelling expenses. Is

that in this vote or is it in the vote for the Northwest Territories?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That was paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, and I understand the amount was in the neighbourhood of $14,000.


Mr. Cardiff:: The minister referred to seven employees having received a lot of the money '.n this vote for the distribution of tons of ;his election material. Surely to goodness they are not carried from one year to the other to run an election once every four or five years.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: These employees were taken on in January. They will probably be there about a year.


William Joseph Browne: I notice on page 129 that sundry expenses of elections are set at $25,000 for 1951-52 and also for 1952-53, but to the left of those figures actual expenditures are shown as $222,000 in 1950-51 and $327,000 is the estimated amount for 1951-52. Can the minister tell us how much has been spent so far with respect to the six by-elections in 1952-53 for which there cannot be any vote in these estimates?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: As I say, these election expenses are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund but the Auditor General insists that we keep that vote there every year.


William Joseph Browne: Can you tell me how much the six by-elections cost?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: 1 understand that the accounts have not all been paid yet.


William Joseph Browne: How much has been paid so far?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have not that information.


William Joseph Browne: Can you get it?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We can get it for you.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: I want to draw attention to another item having to do with stationery.
Now here is an expenditure of $60,000 and the stationery item is only $750, whereas in some of the other votes it was more than 25 per cent of the total vote.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is because this is a branch of the department in which there is no red tape.


George Randolph Pearkes: Is the hon. member a parliamentary assistant?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is just office stationery, Mr. Chairman.


Howard Charles Green: What practice will be followed with regard to the appointment of returning officers once the redistribution bill has oassed? There are to be new ridings, of
Supply-Secretary of State course, and some ridings are to be wiped out. What procedure will be followed, and how long will it be before the returning officers are appointed for all these ridings?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We can do nothing, Mr. Chairman, until the redistribution bill passes. Then the appointments will be made by order of the governor in council as soon as possible.


Howard Charles Green: Will they be appointed during this calendar year?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Possibly; I hope so. One never knows when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will bring about an election.


Stanley Howard Knowles: While we are making up our minds on that point, may I remind the Secretary of State that it is usual for the redistribution bill, as we call it, not to become effective until after dissolution.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There is authority in the Canada Elections Act for the appointment of returning officers in these new ridings when the new act passes.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I wonder if the Secretary of State could explain to me how, under the item of expenses of elections, where the vote is $25,000 this year as it was last year-


Alphonse Fournier: That question was asked twice before.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Go ahead and see if you get the same answer.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Perhaps the answer was not understandable. What I am interested in is how expenses of $327,000 are paid out of the amount that is authorized?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: For the benefit of the hon. member I do not mind answering the question again. Election expenses are paid out of the consolidated revenue fund, but the auditor general insists that we have an item of $25,000 in the estimates each year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the same answer he gave last time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil service commission-
78. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $1,912,064.
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask some questions that may involve the Secretary of State getting some figures. If that means that any more officials need to come in, then I have given fair warning.
While waiting for that, may I draw to the attention of the Secretary of State a paragraph in a document which has just recently been published. It does not bear a date of publication, but on the back at least there is a note which says it was printed in 1952.

Supply-Secretary of State It is entitled "For your information as a civil servant of Canada", and it was prepared by the staff training division of the civil service commission, Ottawa. On page 16, under the general heading "Your promotion opportunities", I find this paragraph:
When vacancies occur, a sincere and planned effort is made to select the best person available, regardless of sex, religion, nationality, political belief, personal sponsorship, overseas service or any other extraneous consideration.
I shall grant, Mr. Chairman, that some of these considerations are correctly described, but is that a correct way of referring to overseas service-as an extraneous consideration?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: From where did the document come?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought I indicated it came from the civil service commission. It is a booklet entitled "For your information as a civil servant of Canada", prepared by the staff training division of the civil service commission, Ottawa. It was printed by Edmond Cloutier, C.M.G.,	O.A.,	D.S.P.,
queen's printer and controller of stationery, Ottawa, 1952.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Would you mind reading that again?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think I know the cause of the levity, but I regard the matter to which I have drawn attention as quite serious. It seems to me that somebody has made a slip. The paragraph reads:
When vacancies occur, a sincere and planned effort is made to select the best person available, regardless of sex, religion, nationality, political belief, personal sponsorship, overseas service or any other extraneous consideration.
I agree that, in civil service matters, all those considerations except the last one might properly be designated as extraneous. Surely the civil service commission does not regard overseas service as an extraneous consideration.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I wonder if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would tell us whether that applies to appointments or promotions?


Stanley Howard Knowles: According to the book it appears, as I said before when I read this the first time, Mr. Chairman, under the general heading of "Your promotion opportunities".


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I understand that overseas service does not apply to promotions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the Secretary of State feel that even if that is the case it is proper to refer to overseas service as an extraneous consideration.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: From the standpoint of
promotions it is apparently not to be considered; that is what the statement says.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall leave it to the Secretary of State to get a copy of this booklet, and see what he really thinks about it. May I ask the minister whether he has any up-to-date figures as to the number of civil servants in the various categories, permanent, temporary permanent, temporary and any other category. I do not want to confuse him-


Jean-François Pouliot: Take permanents first.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We shall take the permanents first, then the temporary-permanent and temporary. Can the minister give the figures for this year, last year and perhaps the year before that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There are, roughly, 130,000 employees under the civil service commission. Of those 60,000 are permanent and 70,000 are temporary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What was the situation a year ago and two years ago?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The increase in the permanents last year was 10,000 and the year before about 6,000, so the number of temporary employees would be reduced accordingly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the Secretary of State divide the temporaries into ordinary temporaries and temporary permanents?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have no such distinction.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I should like to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State a case which concerns pensions of civil servants. Apparently some distinction is made between veterans who served in the first world war and those who served in the second world war.
A veteran of world war I entering the civil service after July, 1924, can have his war service counted towards his superannuation on paying double the normal contribution for that periods-that is, the employee's share and the government's share-plus 4 per cent interest.
However, as he entered the service after July, 1924, he comes under the provisions of part I of the Civil Service Act which stipulates a ten-year salary average to establish his rate of pension.
Had he entered the service prior to July, 1924, part IV of the act would have applied and his pension would have been based on the average salary of five years. In short, the 1914-18 veteran, although he is purchasing service for that period at a high rate plus interest, is denied the privilege of being

placed under part IV with resulting benefits in retirement.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a matter for the Department of Finance, not for this department.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does not the question of civil service pensions come under this item?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No, Mr. Chairman.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does not the civil service commission set the rules of entry?


William Alfred Robinson: Order. I was trying to apprehend the purport of what the hon. member was saying. I think he will find that the matter can properly be discussed under item 130 of the Department of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask whether the civil service commission has anything to do with the prospect of the five-day week, or is that matter also to be referred to the Minister of Finance?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I think the days and hours of work are determined by the treasury board.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right. We will take that matter up with the Minister of Finance.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There is just one other question I want to ask and it is this. Under what rules does a person become permanent? Who sets the designation? I have in mind one case of a civil servant who has had 27 years with one department, has been promoted three or four times, and has been actually in charge of one of the subdepartments of this department in the absence of the director. Yet despite all efforts, and despite 27 years of continuous service, he has not been able to be classed as a permanent civil servant. A great deal of that service, in fact most of it, was given overseas. This civil servant is in the department of immigration, as a matter of fact. That fact may have something to do with the matter. After that length of service it would seem to me a gross injustice not to have that civil servant classed as a permanent civil servant, particularly having regard to the fact that he has for years requested ' that he be considered as such. Who decides? Is it the minister? Is it the director? Is it the civil service commission? Who makes the decision?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The decision will depend upon two questions. The first is whether the work he is doing is of a permanent character. Second, the department must report that his work is satisfactory and ask for his transfer to the permanent list.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The work is of a permanent character.
Supply-Secretary of State


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I wonder whether the hon. member would be good enough to give me the details of that particular case. I will be glad to look into it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: I will, Mr. Chairman.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does the civil service commission make any appointments? .


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I understand that it made
29,000	appointments last year.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Did it make those appointments on the record of the candidates, having regard to how they are appraised on their examinations?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is so; yes.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Or did it merely make recommendations to the government instead of making the appointments?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The civil service commission is an independent organization. The government does not interfere with its decisions.


William Joseph Browne: How many civil servants are ordinarily resident in Ottawa?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: About 32,000.


William Joseph Browne: That is a high number for this city. I take it that the people of other provinces and other cities outside of Ottawa are given opportunities to take examinations for appointment here? Would that be correct?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


William Joseph Browne: Following up that question there is one other I wish to ask. As to the people at the extremities of the country-for instance, those in British Columbia or in Newfoundland-does it work out in practice that although they are notified of positions, they do not actually enter to any extent and compete?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The commission has regional offices in every province in Canada, I understand, and they issue notices. Application can be made through the regional office in each province.


William Joseph Browne: Are there actually many applications for appointments that are being made here in Ottawa?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: As a matter of actual fact quite a large proportion of officials do come from the extremities of Canada, but frankly not as many as we would like.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: The minister just said the commission had made 29,000 appointments, I think it was, last year. If I remember correctly he said earlier that the increase in the number of civil servants had been only 10 per cent of the total.

Supply-Secretary of State


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said the number of permanents had increased by 10,000 and that the number of temporaries had decreased by the same number.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What does that indicate as to wastage? The argument is apparently stronger if there are 29,000 appointments made and the numbers are no greater.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The 29,000 includes wastage. The actual increase was about 8,000.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is the point I want to get at. Is there wastage of 21,000?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is turnover.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That seems terrific. Is there anything that can be said in mitigation of what seems to be a rather astonishing figure?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It has been much higher during the last two years. For that we blame the industrial situation to some extent.


Howard Charles Green: Does the minister mean that the members of the service are able to get so much better salaries outside that they are leaving the service?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: In a good many cases that is so; yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Then the turnover in the civil service is of the nature of 24 per cent per annum.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I have not worked out the percentage.


Agar Rodney Adamson: There are 130,000 civil servants. Is the turnover 29,000?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have to take into account the fact that a good many of those appointments are for short terms, and there may be a turnover in one appointment perhaps two or three times a year.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Are most of these 29,000 in the lower brackets, or are a fair percentage of them in the upper brackets? What I am interested in is not only the turnover in the lower brackets, but the appeal by industry for the higher paid civil servants. Are we losing a great number of civil servants in the higher brackets to industry, and particularly civil servants who have technical skills?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No; the bulk of the turnover is in the lower brackets.


William Joseph Browne: The minister said a few moments ago the government does not interfere in connection with appointments. I understand examinations are held for appointments. After the examination a person
[Mr. Macdonnell (Greenwood).)

is appointed. Those who rate in order of merit are listed, I understand. Has it been the experience during the past year that all those who happen to be in second place have received the appointment, if a vacancy occurred in the position?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: No; there are cases in which the department rejects the higher candidate.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What happens in that case? Is there a report to the minister? I have known of a case where I think that happened. What happens in such an incident as that? Does it remain wholly with the commission or not, where the commission decides not to act according to the strict principles laid down. I am not saying that is never the right thing to do, but I am asking whether in such a case there is any report to the minister of the circumstances. Is there a check of any kind on the commission in the matter?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Is the hon. member referring to a rejection by the department?


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I understood the minister to say there were certain cases where the person who came highest, according to the ordinary test, was not appointed. I know that happens occasionally and I am asking the minister whether in such a case there is any procedure whereby a report is made to the minister or to someone else. In other words, in such an exceptional case is there some reviewing authority?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: So far as the commission is concerned the candidate who gets the highest marks gets the job, but he may be rejected by the department. Section 24 of the act reads as follows:
The deputy head may, at any time before the expiration of six months, reject any person assigned or appointed to any position under his control or direction, or he may extend the period of probation within which such person may be rejected for another six months: and the cause of rejection, or the reason for extending the period of probation, shall be reported by the deputy head to the commission.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is the
other way around.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That is to say, the deputy head may for cause refuse to continue an appointment and then refer it to the commission?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That part is clear; but does the minister now say that the commission is bound, absolutely bound,

to appoint the person who receives the highest marks? "Marks" was the word he used. Is it as definite and as rigid as that? That surprises me. I am also wondering if it is quite as rigid as that in practice.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not think I shall read the section unless the hon. member requires it, but ordinarily the decision is that the person getting the highest number of marks gets the position, so far as the civil service commission is concerned, but considerations may arise occasionally which would cause them to give a different decision.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: What would those considerations be?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Special qualifications.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: That comes back to this.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I will read the section of the act to you, if you like.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Let me put
my question first. A few minutes ago the minister .used the word "marks" which suggested that the whole thing depended on examination. Now he is using a broader term, which I think might be quite sensible, an additional test. But I want to know whether in fact it is marks, or whether the commission is entitled to use its discretion. For instance, there are certain appointments that are made partly as a result of written examinations and partly as a result of a personal interview. What is the situation here?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The section reads:
The commission shall thereupon appoint the person whose name stands highest upon the commission's list of eligible persons for the class in which the position is found and who is willing to accept the appointment; in case there is no such list for the class, the commission shall forthwith hold an examination and, if necessary to prevent any serious interference with the public business, but not otherwise, may fill the position at once by making a temporary appointment as prescribed herein.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I am getting more confused every moment because that seems to refer to a list. If that list was not available and you went on and had an examination, what would happen? Would the minister read those words again?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: They read:
The commission shall thereupon appoint the person whose name stands highest upon the commission's list of eligible persons-


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How is that list arrived at?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: By a competitive examination. An examination may be either written or oral or both oral and written.
Supply-Secretary of State


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I want to return to the item which was up a moment ago, namely the item of wastage. The minister seemed to give the answer in a very general and somewhat offhand way. All we got in the end was that the wastage was predominantly among the junior ranks, which is what one would expect because there are more of them. But I would have thought that would be a matter of such deep concern to the minister and to his senior officials that we should be able to get some rather detailed information. I would have thought there must be some rather significant facts which should enter in here. I do not feel like leaving it in that entirely general, and if I may say so, offhand way.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I understand this subject is being considered very seriously by the commission now.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Does the civil service commission make appointments? I asked that question before, and the answer was that it does. However, a little over a year ago I was interested in two individuals who had taken part in an examination. Altogether there were four or five who took the examination for a civil service position, but the man who ranked highest in both the written and oral tests did not get the appointment. The man who came third was appointed. Of course, according to my belief, the civil service commission did not make any appointment at all; I always think it is the government that makes the appointment. Of course I may be wrong in that.
In this instance, according to the regulations of the commission the man at the top should have received the appointment. I do not wish to give names because the man who was appointed is a good chap and a friend of mine, but his capabilities are not nearly equal to those of the man who was first in the test. They are not in the same class at all.


Mr. Richard (Otiawa East):: Perhaps he got it because he was a friend of yours.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: No; the fellow who got the job was a strong Liberal.


Mr. Richard (Ottawa East):: And that is why he was a friend of yours?


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: He was a friend of mine, just the same.


George Harris Hees: We make allowances.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: And that was the reason he got the job. It is a pity to have this question bandied about here tonight. What we should do is to have the officers of the civil service commission before us for an hour or two so we could iron out some things we all know
3540	HOUSE OF
Supply-Secretary of State are not as smooth or as straight as they should be. I realize that recommendations are made to the Department of Finance, the Department of Agriculture, or whatever department it may be; but I do not think those recommendations are carried out. I say the department turns around and says to the civil service commission, "We will tell you whom to finally appoint". Then the appointment is made.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I wish to repeat that the government does not interfere with appointments made by the civil service commission. There are cases when departments reject those who have been selected by the commission, but they would constitute less than one per cent of the whole.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: I wish to say only a few words, and they are words of congratulations to the civil service commission upon the very fine job they are doing. I say that seriously and sincerely. My only complaint in the county of Charlotte is that those who receive the appointments are all Tories. I repeat that in my view the commission is doing a fine job, and they are to be congratulated upon the way they make appointments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Have you never seen D. R. Bishop?


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the procedure when a minister requires a certain man? Can he appoint him without going through the civil service commission? The Department of Defence Production would be a case in point. The minister of that department might require a certain man for a specific job. Generally the man selected must sacrifice a great deal when he accepts the job. However, the minister wants one man he knows could fill that job, and he does not want to go through the civil service commission. The man is needed in a hurry. What is the machinery? Is it possible to by-pass the civil service commission in a case of that kind?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It can be done where parliament gives authority to do so; but not otherwise.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Parliament gives authority through what means? Is it by order in council?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: By statute.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: With regard to the returned soldier preference, is there a point where that preference does not operate as against nonsoldiers?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: If a returned veteran comes up to the standard required by the department, he has absolute preference over all other candidates.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Is that only in respect of appointments?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: For appointments, yes.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Does that mean that the man who was able to pass the examination would not receive the appointment, but that a returned soldier would? How does that effect the department concerned?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: So far as we know the preference given to veterans has not done any serious harm to the service.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Is special consideration given to a soldier who has enlisted in the Canadian army but who, because of his officer holding him in some special job, has been prevented from going overseas?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: There is no provision for them now.


Samuel Rosborough Balcom: Would the minister take that into consideration?


Mr. Churchill:: I would ask the minister to make a statement concerning competitive examinations held to fill positions that become vacant during the year. Would he indicate the number of examinations set, the cost of setting them, the number of candidates, and the cost of conducting examinations.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: We have not those figures at hand now. To secure them would involve some research, but if the hon. member wishes to have them I can get them for him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister said there was a wastage of about 29,000 per year. That would seem to be important, and perhaps the process of filling positions that become vacant would be costly. The information I have asked would be helpful.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I think I can get it.


Agar Rodney Adamson: What is the cost of recruitment for the civil service? The breakdown refers chiefly to the salaries of personnel including clerks, investigators, organizers and the like. There is one small amount of $35,000 for advertising, as it is set out at page 153. What was the cost to the civil service of the recruitment of the 29,000 people who came in? My understanding is that the commission is responsible for upgrading and for other duties. In this instance I am referring to the job of recruitment. What was the cost of recruiting those 29,000?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: You mean the bulk figure?


Agar Rodney Adamson: Yes; that would be all right.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The total cost was about $2 million, and I am advised that the estimated cost of recruitment was $1,125,000.


Agar Rodney Adamson: That is about $30 a head?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I do not know; the hon. member is better at figures than I am.


Agar Rodney Adamson: It is about $40 a head.


Clarence Decatur Howe: Very cheap.


Jean-François Pouliot: In previous years there was a list at the end of the civil service commission report indicating those who served on the civil service commission board. I was most interested in that list because it showed the gentlemen who conducted the examinations. I wonder why the publication of that list has been discontinued, and when it was discontinued.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The list is available to the hon. member if he wants it. It was deleted from the report purely as a matter of cutting costs.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to know when and why it was deleted from the report.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It was hardly deleted; it was not inserted, which is somewhat different. The object was purely to cut costs. I can get the list for the hon. member if he desires to have it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like everybody to benefit from it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: How many appointments to the public service-do not let us call it the civil service-are made without the tests which have been described to us having to be passed? For example, do those who come in on a temporary basis have to pass the tests that have been outlined to us tonight? Is the method of appointment exactly the same?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes, if the positions are under the jurisdiction of the commission.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Do they take the same examinations and are they chosen in exactly the same way as the members of the permanent staff?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Then we will leave them aside for the moment. Are there not in fact a good many appointments of a minor nature which do not come to the civil service at all?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: I believe there are about
30,000	positions which do not.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: When we are given a list of civil servants we do not get that 30,000. We have more employees than we know of. That is not my point. I want to know how the division is made. Can the minister tell us in a general way 55704-2244
Supply-Secretary of State who those 30,000 are and how they are appointed? Are they appointed by friends of the party?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The statutory law of the country determines which positions come under the civil service commission.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does that mean that there are-


Alphonse Fournier: Thirty thousand civil servants not appointed by the commission? No, sir; it is not true.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The question was answered as though there were.


Alphonse Fournier: If you are speaking of prevailing rates and labouring people, they are not appointed by the commission.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Archives-
A-Department-
321.	General administration and technical services, $262,306.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The two votes having to do with this branch show a decrease of $1,279, and I am rather sorry to see that tendency although I am all in favour of economy. I think at the present time the archives is one branch of the government service which actually requires more funds to do its necessary work. I rise as one who is interested in the archives to express my appreciation- I am sure I am joined in this by a lot of other people-of the excellent work being done by the dominion archivist and his staff. We are fortunate in our present dominion archivist because of his wide knowledge and ability, his academic training and his great interest in the archives of Canada. I am sure that everyone will agree that anyone wishing to secure anything from the archives is met with the most courteous and efficient service on the part of the archivist and his staff.
I think the present report on the public archives is excellent. It is drafted in easily understandable and readable form. Besides the excellent pictures of Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh there is an excellent picture of the minister and also one of the undersecretary of state. I have had several people comment on the excellent reports and the clear picture given of the work being done in the dominion archives branch. They show that the work is well organized and that they are doing a lot of work that has not been done up to date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Secretary of State Public Printing and Stationery-
323. Departmental administration, including in 1952-53 procurement and accounting services to meet stationery and printing requirements for other departments, $353,732.
Stanley Howard Knowles: It is a little late to open up a discussion on matters relating to the printing bureau. It is going to take us a while to digest the information we have obtained this evening, so we will cut it short. Initially may I ask the Secretary of State if he can tell us when it is expected the printing bureau will move to its new quarters, and what progress is being made in connection with that building.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that is a subject upon which I am not a very capable prognosticator. It depends on when we can get the steel and when we can proceed with the work. Possibly if my hon. friend were to apply to the Minister of Public Works for information he would get more than I can give him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Secretary of State can tell us what is the current rate of wages at the printing bureau.


Frederick Gordon Bradley: It is $1.75 an hour.


Edmund Davie Fulton: What is the reason for the large increase in this item?; There is an increase of $281,000. The item is for departmental administration, including in 1952-53 procurement and accounting services to meet stationery and printing requirements for other departments. The amount is $353,732 compared with $72,604 last year, an increase of $281,128. It is four times the amount of the item last year. Why is that increase so pronounced?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: The explanation is that in years past a good many of the administrative staff and employees in the printing bureau were paid by a sort of surcharge placed upon the price of work done for the departments through the advance account. This year we are bringing these items into the estimates so it is all before the house.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Does this mean that there is a change in procedure with respect to parliamentary printing? I remember being on the printing committee some years ago, and there was considerable criticism raised about the printing of committee reports. The reports would be printed in English and then months later a contract would be let and the reports would then be printed in French. They were only available months after the session had ended. There was considerable criticism of that practice in the committee because by that time the French version of those committee reports would be virtually
[Mr. Herrldge.l
valueless. They would be out of date. Has that practice been stopped, and does this increase in the estimate take care of that?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: This item brings about no change in the procedure. The reports come out in English first because for the most part the proceedings are in English and they have to be translated into French. That is what causes whatever delay there may be in the production of the French copies of the reports. This item makes no difference in procedure.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The committee reports in French are contracted to printers outside the printing bureau, are they?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Some are and some are not.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Can the minister give me any idea of the percentage of contracts let outside the printing bureau?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: About 65 per cent of the whole went to outside firms last year.


Agar Rodney Adamson: About 65 per cent?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Of the total.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Sixty-five per cent of the total printing went to outside firms? Can the minister give me an idea of the cost of that in round figures?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: About $4J million. That does not include paper. We usually provide the paper.


Agar Rodney Adamson: Printing to the value of $4J million went to outside printers?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: Yes.


Agar Rodney Adamson: The printing bureau provided the paper and the $4J million went to outside firms simply for printing. Is that so?


Frederick Gordon Bradley: That is correct.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

['Yes.']
Alphonse Fournier: On Monday we will proceed with the following items: Bill No. 346, respecting the Canadian National Railways system; Bill No. 347, to authorize the government of Canada to enter into agreements with the provincial governments; Bill No. 305, respecting immigration; Bill No. 246, to amend the Canada Grain Act. Then we will take up the legislation appearing on the order paper in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Howard Charles Green: It will be in that order?


Alphonse Fournier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
85.	Departmental administration, $2,613,057.
86.	Passport office administration, $222,847.
87.	Representation abroad-operational-including payment of salaries of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary, consuls, secretaries and staff appointed as directed by the governor general in council, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Civil Service Act or any of its amendments, $4,938,357.
88.	Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, new equipment and furnishings, $312,930.
89.	Representation abroad-to authorize the construction, acquisition, improvement and furnishing of properties for Canadian government offices and residences abroad, payment therefor to be made in foreign currencies that are not convertible into Canadian or United States dollars and that may be used only for governmental or other limited purposes and that have been acquired in respect of reparations or pursuant to the settlement of claims arising out of military operations or war expenditures, or in exchange for other such currencies so acquired, $1,654,500.
90.	To provide for official hospitality, $20,000.
91.	To provide for relief of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and for the reimbursement of the United Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable), $15,000.
92.	Canadian representation at international conferences, $225,000.
93.	Canadian section of Canada-United States permanent joint board on defence including $7,500 for the chairman, notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act, $10,000.
94.	Grant to the United Nations Association in Canada, $10,000.
95.	Grant to the international committee of the Red Cross, $25,000.
96.	To provide for the construction and execution in Canada of seven doors to be donated by Canada to the United Nations permanent headquarters in New York, $50,000.
B-General-
The Canadian government's assessment for membership in the following international or commonwealth organizations-
97.	United Nations organization, $1,463,200. Specialized agencies-
98.	Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations, $246,800.
99.	International Labour Organization, $248,900.
100.	United Nations Educational, Scientific and cultural Organization, $331,800.
101.	International Civil Aviation Organization, $128,320.
102.	World Health Organization, $270,800.
103.	Commonwealth economic committee, $16,830.
104.	Commonwealth shipping committee, $510.
105.	Inter-American committee on social security, $4,600.
106.	The Canadian government's contribution to the administration of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, $13,900.
107.	Contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to meet the Canadian government's share of the cost of civil administration, $178,000.
Supply
108.	United Nations expanded program for technical assistance to under-developed countries, $850,000.
International Civil Aviation Organization-
109.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, $76,046.
International joint commission-
110.	To provide for preliminary studies and surveys of the mid-western watershed, $10,000.
111.	To provide for Canada's share of an investigation on the matter of air pollution in the vicinity of Detroit and Windsor, $52,784.
112.	To provide for Canada's share of the expenses of the Niagara Falls reference, $10,000.
Terminable services-
113.	Colombo program for technical co-operation in south and southeast Asia, $400,000.
114.	To provide for and authorize grants or loans to governments of countries in south and southeast Asia to assist in the economic development of such countries, and special administrative expenses in connection therewith, $25,000,000.
115.	Contribution to the provisional inter-governmental committee for the movement of migrants from Europe, $154,600.
[Stage Direction]
Office of the chief electoral officer-
56. Salaries and expenses of office, $60,963.
Civil service commission-
78. Salaries and contingencies of the commission, $1,912,064.
Public archives-
A-Department-
321.	General administration and technical services, $262,306.
B-Bibliographic centre-
322.	Bibliographic centre (national library), $48,109.
Public printing and stationery-
323.	Departmental administration, including in 1952-53 procurement and accounting services to meet stationery and printing requirements for other departments, $353,732.
324.	Stationery branch-operation of stationery stores, $348,943.
325.	Printing and binding the annual statutes, $40,000.
326.	Canada Gazette, $130,000.
327.	Plant equipment and replacements, $197,244.
328.	Distribution of official documents, $165,574.
329.	Printing and binding official publications for sale and distribution to departments and the public, $430,000.
433.	Departmental administration, $213,883.
434.	Companies branch, $87,658.
435.	Trade marks branch, including a contribution of $2,400 to the international office for the protection of industrial property, $93,704.
436.	Bureau for translations, $898,025.
437.	Canada Temperance Act, $1,000.
Patent and copyright office-
438.	Administration division, $74,469.
439.	Patent division (including the former patent record division), $840,391.
440.	Copyright and industrial designs division, including a contribution of $2,100 to the union office for the protection of literary and artistic works, $20,279.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 23, 1952