1957-11-26

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in view of recent press reports I would like to make a brief statement.
A few weeks ago Mr. Charles Gavsie, president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, advised me that for almost a year he had been considering accepting a position with a private law firm in Montreal and that the time was rapidly approaching when he must make a decision in this matter. He advised me he would like to resign his position as president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority on January 31 next and enter the law firm on that date.
In spite of my best efforts to persuade him to at least postpone this decision until after the opening of the seaway, he thought he could not do so without jeopardizing the opportunity now afforded him, and for this reason he is tendering his resignation effective January 31, 1958.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) requested that I table a copy of a speech I made at the FAO conference in Rome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have now received a copy of this speech from the delegation which has returned from Rome, and table it at this time. I hope the hon. member will find it interesting.


Mr. Pearson:: Has it been censored?


Mr. Tucker:: Have you found out what you said yourself yet?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I always knew.


An hon. Member:: You could not tell us.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour of which I have given him notice. My question is as follows. In view of the short salmon fishing season on the Pacific coast which resulted in poor earnings for salmon fishermen and subsequently resulted in many of the said fishermen not being able to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, will the minister undertake to recommend to the government that it enact a special emergency regulation under section 29 of the Unemployment Insurance Act so that west coast fishermen will be able to draw unemployment insurance benefits even though they may have less than the required 15 stamps?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: The answer is, Mr. Speaker, that under the new fishermen's regulations which come into effect December 1, fishermen will come under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and as a result will be eligible for seasonal benefits which are being extended

Inquiries of the Ministry under the resolution presently on the order paper. Under these new regulations fishermen will now be entitled to receive unemployment insurance payments after only 15 weekly contributions.
The situation to which the hon. member refers will be kept under close scrutiny, and if it warrants action careful consideration will be given.
Provision is also being made in the amendment to seasonal benefit regulations for benefits to be awarded to certain classes of claimants who have exhausted their regular benefits. A number of fishermen could conceivably come under this provision.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister advise us whether he has received any representations by the united fishermen and allied workers' union recently with regard to this matter?


Michael Starr: Yes, I received a telegram this morning.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to answer the question asked of me last week by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond.
My answer is as follows. While the Canadian government, and particularly the Minister of Labour, would be greatly pleased to see such contracts being referred to firms in Canada, I should nevertheless inform the hon. member that this government has no jurisdiction over the placing of contracts by Canadian private firms.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Murphy (Westmorland):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of continued lay-offs of Canadian National Railways employees at Moncton? Second, will the minister inform the house what progress has been made in the C.N.R. works program, money for which was made available by the government in order to assist these men?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have given a number of answers to similar questions asked in the house this session. I answered at some length the question asked on the subject

by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) two or three weeks ago. I do not think I could give a better answer with regard to the general situation of periodic lay-offs which, unfortunately, have to occur, than the answer I gave on that occasion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is the minister aware that employees are still being laid off in Winnipeg despite the answer he gave to my question?


George Harris Hees: In the answer I gave to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre I did not indicate that, unfortunate as it most certainly is, it might not from time to time be necessary to bring about these lay-offs. If the hon. member will read my answer to him-he was not present when I made it-he will see the general explanation of the reason for these lay-offs which was given to me by the management of the C.N.R.


Henry Joseph Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the first part of my question asked whether the minister was aware of the continued lay-offs at the C.N.R. shops in Moncton, and does he not still consider these unnecessary as he did two years ago when he visited Moncton?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that hon. members would not expect that the Minister of Transport should be aware from day to day of every lay-off or small group of lay-offs which occur, regrettable as those lay-offs are. I am not aware of these new lay-offs which the hon. member has mentioned, but I would like to remind him that I announced in this house a few days ago a $17 million program to enlarge the freight yards at Moncton, and I think that is a pretty good answer to the point he raised.



REQUEST FOR USE OF UTOPIA CAMP AS TRADE SCHOOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. Stuart (Charlotte):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Since there is widespread unemployment in Charlotte county caused to some extent by the closing of the textile mill in Milltown, and since universities, colleges and other educational facilities in the maritime provinces are overcrowded, has the minister considered making use of Utopia army camp, recently closed, as a trade school?


Michael Starr: No, I have not considered that aspect. However, it certainly sounds reasonable, and I will look into it.



REQUEST FOR SALES STATISTICS IN TORONTO-HAMILTON AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. Blackmore (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and inasmuch as he is not in the house may I direct it to his parliamentary assistant. Will the minister tell the house how much Mexican refined sugar has been sold in the Toronto-Hamilton area since mid-August, 1957? Second, will he inform us at how much less per hundredweight this Mexican sugar is being sold than is Ontario-produced sugar in the same area?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the hon. member would expect the minister to have an answer to that question on his cuff. I suggest that the question be put on the order paper, unless the hon. minister wishes to deal with it today.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Well, Mr. Speaker, notice was given, but I understand that some research is necessary, so perhaps an answer could be given later.



STATEMENT ON IMPORTS FROM UNITED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the hon. member for Okanagan-Revelstoke asked the following question:
Has the government become aware of heavy imports of hay from the United States of America into western and southern British Columbia, mainly delivered by trucks and trailers? If so, is any action contemplated to protect the hay growers of the Okanagan and Shuswap areas, who find it impossible to meet this competition?
The answer is as follows. The government is aware of the fact that hay is being imported into southern British Columbia. This is a normal situation because certain parts of that province, such as the Fraser valley and the Cariboo, usually are deficit areas for hay. The volume of imports varies widely from year to year, depending on local crop and pasture conditions.
From January to August, 1956, imports amounted to 27,805 tons. During the same months of 1957 imports amounted to 19,702 tons. While complete official import figures are not available for subsequent months this year, present indications are that imports will be substantially lower than they were in the same months last year.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Recent reports from British Columbia indicate that a substantial part of current imports is being carried by truck, but again no complete current statistics are available.
Market reports indicate that imported alfalfa hay of good quality is being delivered to Williams Lake at about $31 per ton and to Vancouver at from $26.75 to $27 per ton. Rail freight from the northern Okanagan and Shuswap is approximately $11.40 per ton; hence alfalfa hay of good quality originating in the north Okanagan area and shipped to Vancouver should be worth between $15 and $16 per ton at the shipping point.
An estimate made by the provincial department of agriculture indicates a surplus of about 1,500 tons of hay in the north Okanagan and Shuswap areas, but it is also indicated that these areas normally ship very little hay to the coastal region. In any event the amount available seems to be very much less than will be required, particularly for the dairy herds in the lower mainland.
In view of these facts and estimates and of the admitted urgent need of both dairy farmers and beef cattle producers for additional supplies of hay, it would not appear desirable to consider any restrictions or controls on imports of hay at the present time. In addition, of course, there is at present no legal basis for such action. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary sent in a similar question.



POTATOES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. C. Christian (Okanagan Boundary):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture. Notice of it has been given. Is the Minister of Agriculture aware of extremely heavy shipments of United States potatoes into the Vancouver wholesale region? If so, what action is intended to be taken by his department?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Trade statistics are not available to cover recent imports, but the record of unloads on the Vancouver market by rail and truck indicates that during the period November 1-15, 1957, a total of 68 cars of domestic potatoes and 22 cars of United States potatoes, including 18 cars from Washington or the dry belt area, reached that market. This compares with 60 cars of Canadian and 38 American, including 28 Washington, during the same period in 1956. In other words, imports this year during the same period are just over half what they were last year.
Wholesale quotations at Vancouver during the above period in 1957 per 100 pounds of

Inquiries of the Ministry No. 1 grade ranged from $2.90-$3.35 for domestic potatoes and from $3.25-$3.50 for United States potatoes. Comparable prices a year ago were $3.15-$3.65 for domestic and $2.85-$4.65 for imported potatoes.
Imports of United States potatoes must meet the requirements of Canada No. 1 grade, or the equivalent of United States No. 1 grade. In addition, all such imports during this period were dutiable at 37J cents per 100 pounds.
The Vancouver market normally requires a quantity of potatoes over and above local production. There is no indication from current imports and prices that the situation is unusual or requires any action.



MISSION TO UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Lewry (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the house leader. I did not have time to give him notice, but I did send him a copy of a press report.
In view of reports from London that heavy-handed officialdom, both British and Canadian, has resulted in an order to press reporters to leave the sessions of the Canadian trade delegation meeting with United Kingdom officials, can the house leader say whether it is official government policy to withhold such information that may be obtained by the press?


Mr. Speaker:: It strikes me that the hon. gentleman himself recognizes that he is going beyond the rules of the house in asking the government to take responsibility for the press of the United Kingdom.



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON MISSION TO COMMUNIST CHINA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Walter Adam Tucker: I would like to direct a question to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce or his parliamentary assistant. Has the government yet received a report from our trade mission in Hong Kong in regard to its 20-day tour of communist China? If he has, will he advise the house what communist officials our trade mission visited in communist China and what was the result of that trade tour?


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this question and see that it is answered.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on November 19 the hon. member for Cartier addressed the following question to me:
Can the minister tell the house whether any member states of the United Nations have violated or are violating the request of the United Nations not to send military equipment to the Middle East?
I took that question as notice, Mr. Speaker, and I regret my tardiness in replying to the question but I was at the United Nations last week.
Before addressing myself to the substantive part of the question of the hon. member for Cartier I might first correct the misapprehension implicit in the wording of this question regarding the area to which the United Nations resolution was intended to apply. That resolution was not applicable to the whole area of the Middle East, but only to that part of it in which hostilities were taking place at that time, namely Israel and Egypt.
Turning now to the question of whether other United Nations member states are observing the United Nations recommendation, I can only say that it would obviously be a tremendous task for the Canadian government to attempt to keep track of the attitudes and activities of the other 81 fellow United Nations members. It is no secret that there have been deliveries of significant military equipment to the area in question by members of the Soviet bloc, and there have been press reports about deliveries from other countries. However, as I pointed out in my statement of November 19, the Canadian decision to observe the spirit of the United Nations recommendation is not determined by the example of others but rests upon a combination of respect for a United Nations resolution and national considerations relating to our participation in the United Nations emergency force.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I
ask a supplementary question arising out of the answer given by my hon. friend. In view of the fact that his earlier answer covered merely the area of this resolution, Egypt and Israel, does the same policy of prohibition of the export of defence equipment apply also to the other Arab countries in that area?


Sidney Earle Smith: At present it does, Mr. Speaker.

Inquiries of the Ministry
POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT	[Later;]
"free press" stamp issue
On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to address a question to the Postmaster General, now colonel in chief of philately and a former caustic opposition critic of the postal engraver's art. With respect to the stamp to be issued as a tribute to the contribution of the press to the development of Canada, does the minister consider it appropriate that Canada should be stood on end to achieve this objective?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question. It immediately occurred to me that this stamp is just one other example of the many things stood on end by the previous government which my colleagues and I have been straightening out to their proper relationship.
I made inquiries, Mr. Speaker, and I am informed that this stamp, the design of which was approved in April preceding the election; and the colour, which is that black so regretted by many people using stamps, which was approved in May preceding the election, hardly come within the purview of this government. I also understand, Mr. Speaker, that the design, including the stood on end Canada, had the approval of certain advisers of the department who are considered qualified in matters of art.
In reference to this particular stamp, Mr. Speaker, and in reference to some of the comments we have heard in the past, I may say that we are considering somewhat of a broadening of the group of advisers to be consulted about designs in the future.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gale):: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In the five months since June 21 has the Postmaster General not had time to stop this issue if he felt the way in which he has described it in the house?


William McLean Hamilton: I was
hoping someone would ask that question, Mr. Speaker; that is why I left one point unanswered. The stamp was originally intended for issue in October; therefore it went into production immediately following approval of the plate and the colour before this government moved into office and we had a chance to review these things. The reason it was not issued in October, and it now stands ready for issue-printed, of course-has been that the stamp commemorating the royal visit was used to replace this stamp, and it is now intended to release this stamp in January.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. I did not send him notice of the question, but I judge he will know the answer. Will the stamps in the future have larger numerals on them than in the past? Also will the stamps of certain denominations all be of the one colour?


William McLean Hamilton: As
to the size of the numerals on stamps, something which has been a matter of concern to the hon. member for Peterborough for some time, may I say that these numerals are being enlarged. I might also say in this connection that we are currently in consultation, and have been over the last month or so, with an expert on the question of lettering generally so the lettering included on our stamps might be as satisfactory as possible.
Generally, where possible, we will try to follow a standard colour pattern for stamps, but very often that proves to be difficult. A case in point is the special issue which received so much commendation, commemorating the royal visit. The selection of the colour was dictated by the fact that this design was based on a photograph and was intended to represent a photographic technique, and therefore black and white was the appropriate colour for that particular stamp. But generally an attempt will be made to follow a standard colour pattern.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, recently the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) and the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) both asked me about the proposed icebreaking program my department has in mind for this year. I would like to make a very brief statement on this. Departmental officials have been maintaining daily contact with the situation at the lakehead in this regard over the last few days. The contract was awarded last week to the Hindman Transportation Company of Owen Sound, the lowest tenderer when tenders were called for this purpose, for the normal end of the season icebreaking at the lakehead; and the first of two tugs to be provided for this purpose was dispatched to the lakehead over the week end and is due to arrive some time today. The second tug is presently having an ice plow fitted and is expected to be available at the lake-head by the end of the week.


Mr. Mclvor:: Thank you.
1508	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry WATER RESOURCES



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. W. McLeod (Okanagan-Revelsioke):: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, of which he was given notice last Friday. A wing dam built on the Columbia river, within the city limits of Revelstoke, B.C., by the federal government in 1907 is now in such disrepair that river bank property is suffering serious erosion. Has the department given any consideration or formulated any plans to rebuild this dam?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The answer has not yet been prepared. We are checking old files of the department, and I hope to be able to give the hon. member his answer in a day or two.



MANITOBA-INQUIRY AS TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF ST. MALO DAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Provencher):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the serious problem existing in Provencher due to crop losses caused by excessive rains, would the minister say if a start is to be made this fall on the St. Malo dam project in order to provide some employment for the farmers in that area this winter?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a start will be
made on that project. As a matter of fact, I received information either yesterday or today from the director of the P.F.R.A. that the brushing operation for the reservoir was to start today, I think.



MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis Denisel (St. Boniface):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture in view of his reply to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Jorgenson). Is work on the dam at Rivers, Manitoba, also going to be started soon?


Douglas Scott Harkness: There are no immediate plans for starting work on the dam at Rivers. Surveys are still going on, and as yet the surveys have not reached a point where work could be started.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Harrington Lewry: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Notice has been given. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the existence of a bread price war in western Canada being carried on by the Weston company, with the apparent purpose of eliminating competition and thereby creating a monopoly? Will the minister consider having action taken immediately under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. E. D. Fulion (Minisier of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for notice of his question. In reply I would advise him that no complaints have been received by the combines branch concerning the matter to which he refers, but if he or other parties have information which is relevant to the Combines Investigation Act I should be glad to receive it in order that I may refer it to the director under the act for consideration as to whether it merits an inquiry.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arlhabaska):: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion No. 7 for production of papers was passed by the house on October 25. I would ask the Secretary of State when I can expect the return to be tabled.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. My attention was momentarily diverted. Will he repeat his question?


Samuel Boulanger: Notice of motion No. 7 for production of papers was passed on October 25 and I should like to have the report tabled.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Speaker, the motion which was on the order paper for production of papers involves several departments. I will do what I can to have it produced shortly.



APPLES-REPORTED FLOODING OF B.C. MARKET BY JAPANESE PRODUCT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminsier):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. I sent him notice, as well as pertinent information

respecting the question. In view of the distressed financial condition in which the apple growers of the Okanagan find themselves, would the minister have an immediate examination into and announce what immediate action, if any, his department intends to take to prevent the flooding of the lower mainland region of British Columbia with Japanese solid packed apples at this time, in the light of the fact that Okanagan packed apples can be had in sufficient supply to look after this market?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, imports of processed apples are not segregated in trade statistics; therefore, the quantity of canned apples imported from Japan is not available. As a result we do not know whether or not they are flooding the market. The department is aware, however, that canned apples have been imported from Japan. These apples have met Canadian grade or quality standards for import, as specified in the processed fruit and vegetables regulations, and are subject to the tariff of 1 cent per pound. Since these imports have met the standards established there is no basis for prohibiting their entry. However, I am having the officials of the department look into the question further.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the minister is having the question looked into, I would also ask him to examine an advertisement by one of the major stores in the area affecting fancy Okanagan Jonathans, which were said to be Canada grade, while inside the box there was a typewritten slip with the words "produced in the United States".


Douglas Scott Harkness: If the hon. member would send me all the details he has in connection with this matter I shall certainly be glad to have it investigated.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any comment to make on the letter which Mr. Lewis Duncan, Q.C., of Toronto wrote to him under date of November 23? In particular, has he any comment to make on Mr. Duncan's request that a certain question of law be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada or that, if necessary, it be dealt with by legislation presented to this parliament?
96698-96J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edmund Davie Fulton: In
reply to the hon. gentleman's question and with particular reference to the second part of it, I should like to advise him that the issue is being studied in the department now, and I hope to be in a position to reach a decision fairly soon.
With regard to the question in general, I wish to take the opportunity to clear up a misapprehension resulting from some of the reports in the press. I have not had the opportunity to consider the full implications of the letter in detail, but I should like to say that I can find in the text itself absolutely no foundation for a charge or suggestion of impropriety in connection with the conduct of Mr. Justice Locke; and there can be and is no suggestion whatsoever of impropriety in connection with the conduct of that distinguished judge.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE SUGGESTED DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING THE SENATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day;
Henry Joseph Murphy: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, and in his absence whoever is acting can take it as notice. Will the dominion-provincial conference now in session remain in session to discuss the making of the Senate an effective arm of democracy or does he consider the appointments made to that place since July 1 to have carried out this aim? This is as promised by the Prime Minister in his national policy.


Howard Charles Green: I am sure the great majority of the members of the house will agree with me when I say that I do not believe that question merits any answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.



REQUEST FOR DISTRIBUTION OF VERBATIM REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. Hansell (Macleod):: Might I direct a question to the Minister of Public Works, the house leader. Will the government have the verbatim report of the dominion-provincial conference containing the statements made by the premiers delivered to the members of parliament so we can all know and have on record the speeches that have been made at that conference?


Howard Charles Green: I believe it has been the practice to do this in the past. I have no doubt that the same course will be followed at the present time.

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.  ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS SUFFERING LOSS THROUGH LANDSLIDES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I have a question which I should like to address to the house leader, of which I have given him notice. Will the government undertake to offer some sort of relief to the residents of the city of Prince Rupert who had their houses demolished by recent landslides and to those who had to evacuate their homes because of threatened additional slides?


Howard Charles Green: I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The members of the government have been very much concerned to learn of this disaster. The course which is followed in such cases is that the municipality in which the disaster took place should get in touch with the provincial government if assistance is needed. Then if the provincial authorities feel that help is needed from the federal government, that further step is taken. In this particular case I believe the disaster was within the boundaries of the city of Prince Rupert. The course I have just pointed out is open to that municipality.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the house leader. In view of the fact that we are getting close to the end of the month, which means the government may shortly be running out of money, is it the intention ef the government to ask the house for interim supply at an early date?


Howard Charles Green: I believe it is the intention to ask for interim supply, but I cannot yet say on what day that step will be taken.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture, or perhaps more properly to the house leader. The question arises out of the continuing drastic drop in agricultural prices and the recession in that industry. Can the minister assure the house that the resolution regarding agricultural prices supports will be

brought forward at the earliest possible date, perhaps Friday of this week, or during government business next week?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I can assure the hon. member that it will be brought forward just as soon as possible.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Before Christmas?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, I cannot say whether it will be brought forward this Friday or any other particular day. I would like to point out, however, as I have done before, that this habit of prefacing a question with a statement about a drastic and continuing fall in prices is not one which is borne out by the latest statistics which I have received. As a matter of fact during the past week or 10 days prices of both cattle and hogs have gone up by from $1.00 to $1.50 per hundred. The price of lambs is up about $2.00 to $2.50 per hundred, and the general level of poultry prices and so forth is higher than it was at this time last year and higher than a few months ago.
Therefore to keep on reiterating that there has been a drastic fall in prices in recent months and that it is still continuing is just not in accordance with the facts. The one commodity which has fallen quite materially in price is hogs, and I think I have already made a statement in connection with that commodity.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a supplementary question, in view of the minister's statement. Would the minister agree that since his government has taken office the trend in the price of grains in this country has been down a very substantial amount, or does he not consider wheat, oats and barley to be agricultural products?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I think I will just give the hon. member the statistics in connection with grains, certainly as far as wheat is concerned. No. 1 northern, stored at Fort William in September, 1956, was priced at $1.72.


Hazen Robert Argue: You were not in office then.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Just a minute. This is for the purpose of comparison. In July, 1957, the price was $1.67, in August, 1957, $1.66 and in September, 1957, $1.71.


An hon. Member:: Not much of a drop there.


Douglas Scott Harkness: One cent drop in a year.


Hazen Robert Argue: Could the minister give us the price of feed wheat and the drop in the price of barley?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, it happens that I do not have the statistics on feed wheat before me or in my head. As the hon. member is aware, he can get those figures from the dominion bureau of statistics or from the wheat board, and therefore there is no need for me to put them on the record at all.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: We are entitled to get them from the minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would like to ask the minister if he is bringing forward only those prices which support him and not those which have gone down?


Douglas Scott Harkness: It just so happens, Mr. Speaker, that I have with me a piece of paper which I got at noon today and which is entitled "Canada-Prices of Selected Agricultural Products". This publication comes out regularly, and I think the hon. member would be well advised to have a copy of it delivered to him; then he would not be making these constant mistakes in regard to what is happening to prices of agricultural products in this country.


Ernest George Hansell: May I ask
the hon. minister this question. Does the government take credit or blame for the rise or drop in prices on the world market?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, I think, knows that we do not take any blame or any credit-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Scott Harkness: -for the general rise and fall in world prices.


An hon. Member:: Just the interest rates.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I would point out to the hon. member, however, that we do take some credit for some increase in the prices of fowl, turkeys and certain other products which has taken place in Canada since we have assumed office, and as a result of actions we have taken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder if I might address another question to the Minister of Agriculture or the house leader-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since the agricultural prices support resolution was placed on the order paper on October 31, and since the house leader on two different occasions intimated to the house that it would be brought forward as soon as possible, does he not think it is now time that this resolution should be brought forward?
External Affairs
Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows very well that we are trying to get some of the estimates approved by the house at the present time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How about the farmers in eastern Canada?


Mr. Cardiff:: We waste one and a half hours every day answering questions.


Mr. Chevrier:: Closure?


Sidney Earle Smith: that the house go into committee of supply.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I desire to congratulate you upon your election as presiding officer of this house. With your host of friends across Canada I felicitate the house on your elevation. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I desire to address some remarks to the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson). I congratulate him on the unique distinction that has come to him in the award of the Nobel peace prize. He has brought recognition to himself and great prestige to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Sidney Earle Smith: I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that the award to him has made my task no easier, but having that in mind I still congratulate him and share the joy of Canadians in that award.
It is indeed a great privilege for me to represent Hastings-Frontenac in this house, an area which is so distinguished in the founding and building of Canada, and I say to my constituents that I will endeavour to be worthy of the support they accorded me. I am not unaware of the fact that the parties in this house did not contest the by-election, and I have only this to observe, that I trust it is the beginning of a habit with respect to this.
I know the people of this country are indeed interested in the foreign policy of Canada, our actions and policies in the field of external affairs, and I also know that other governments are equally interested in the actions and policies of this government. We have been considering in this house, and we shall be considering in this house, matters of great moment which might be described as domestic or national. I am not discounting in any measure the importance and significance of these matters when I observe that the solution of the grave problems which

External Affairs
confront the nations of the world in 1957 has a practical bearing on the health and happiness of Canadians and on the welfare and progress of Canada.
We cannot expect in this field of external affairs to find ready made solutions. Only the eradication of fear and the establishment of mutual confidence among the nations will provide the basic solution, and the government will endeavour in every way to bring this about. Second, to bring about this state of affairs we shall need steadiness, strength and patience.
In view of the fact that today I am making my first statement on foreign policy, and having regard to the fact that there are many new members of the house, freshmen like myself, I propose to outline in somewhat general terms some of the relations and relationships of Canada with other nations. In common with Canadians of all political persuasions I take pride in the advancement of our country to a position of respect and influence in the international field. We are regarded as a leading country of middle-status in the world. Our role is an important one in the commonwealth, in the affairs of the United Nations, in NATO and in all the other various organizations to which Canada adheres. That is a position which Canada has attained by reason of its growing strength, its sense of responsibility and its willingness to accept responsibility; and I believe it is also due to the exercise by Canadians of a certain wisdom and maturity of judgment.
Natural resources and the development of those resources which Canada has achieved have helped to give us a prestige out of all proportion to the size of our population. Our sacrifices in two world wars, and then in recent years in securing the peace in Korea, the Middle East and Indo-China, have added to that prestige; our contributions, of which I will speak later, toward raising the standard of living in various parts of the world, and our contributions toward the alleviation of want and suffering have, too, enabled Canada to speak with confidence and authority.
Moreover, I think we bring to the consideration of the solution of international problems peculiar qualities which Canadians possess. We are the heirs of a European civilization, and I would think, having regard to the development of our national scene that we have a national, or perhaps I should say a natural, tendency and gift for compromise. We are possessed of an idealism which has been somewhat modified by the skepticism which Canadians must have when they realize that the solution of any problem cannot come about by miracles but only as the result of persistent and hard endeavour.
[Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac) .1
And so, Mr. Speaker, it is with these encouraging yet challenging thoughts in mind that I take up my new office as Secretary of State for External Affairs. As I enter this field I assure this house that having regard to the firm foundations which have been laid in respect of our foreign affairs by successive governments I will endeavour to build on these foundations and, as a member of this government under the leadership of the Prime Minister, I will do my best to help in building something distinctive and valuable upon these foundations.
In this context it is clear that Canada must seek to understand the aspirations of other countries; Canada must endeavour to apprehend the motives of other nations, whether they be ill or good, and work closely with friendly nations. But all the while Canadians must think for themselves, and Canada's foreign policy should not be merely a pale reflection of the views of other countries.
My first assignment after I became a member of the government was to go to the United Nations. I think that was an excellent introduction for me because it enabled me to study at first hand, at the beginning of my political and diplomatic career, the machinery, the aspirations and the objectives of that great organization.
'j'hgi'g was in the United Nations, I found, a curiosity with respect to the attitude of the new government in Canada toward the organization, and I can best describe the views of this government by repeating to this house the words of the Prime Minister when he spoke to the general assembly on September 3, 1957. He stated: "We stand on this question now where Canada has always stood since April, 1945. And I emphasize this, with the support of the party which is now in power. So far as Canada is concerned, support of the United Nations is a cornerstone of its foreign policy. We believe that the United Nations will grow stronger because it represents the inevitable struggle of countries to find order in their relationships, and the deep longing of mankind to strive for and attain peace and justice." That is the stand of this country toward the United Nations.
Our confidence in the United Nations, Mr. Speaker, is not blind. It is, we know, an imperfect instrument. Yet one can understand that. The United Nations is not, as the secretary general stated in his last annual report, a supra-state, and how can we expect the United Nations to be better than those who constitute it? The United Nations is, indeed, a microcosm of an imperfect world, a world now in the shadow of nuclear weapons. However, the United Nations has had

its successes, and I think it warrants the designation or description that it is the work shop of world diplomacy.
And amidst all the portents and dark threats of 1957, I suggest to you, sir, that the United Nations is the greatest hope for peace. If the United Nations were not in existence I do think mankind would have to invent something like it in order to afford a forum in which 82 nations could sit down together and discuss face to face their differences and their agreements.
It is a gratifying yet a sobering thought for us that Canada will take its seat for the second time on the security council. That will happen on January 1, 1958.
I was particularly pleased that my first task at the United Nations was to endorse the admission of Malaya and to welcome that country as the newest member state of that organization. The United Nations has now become a more universal body, and many of its new members have risen from the status of colony to that of nationhood. It afforded me even greater pleasure to say on that occasion that I saluted Great Britain, because here was another case that we in Canada know so well of Great Britain encouraging a colony to become a nation. I could not refrain from observing that this had been the historic, the outstanding record of Great Britain, while the U.S.S.R. reversed that process of developing colonies into nations by reducing nations to colonies.
Canada has worked and will continue to work with these new members of the United Nations, and as far as my experience is concerned it has been a joy to co-operate with them.
Among the topics which were discussed at the United Nations this year was the question of disarmament, which was perhaps the major topic. I and members of my delegation at the United Nations had some reason to be not entirely satisfied about the consideration in the twelfth session of the United Nations of that topic which means so much to mankind. The 24 powers did put forward a resolution that was drafted by the subcommittee on disarmament on August 29, 1957, and that resolution did receive en-dorsation by the general assembly. In fact the U.S.S.R. was not able to line up any votes in opposition to that resolution except those of its own satellites. It is true that there were some who abstained from voting on that 24-power resolution, but I judged that in many cases the abstention was due not to any opposition to the resolution but because they really thought any resolution put forward and adopted by the United Nations would be ineffective as the U.S.S.R. said they would not co-operate in further negotiations under that resolution.
External Affairs


Daniel (Dan) McIvor: Would you mind stating the resolution?


Sidney Earle Smith: I have it here but it is quite long. Could I offer it as a paper to be put in my speech? It would take about five minutes to read, Mr. Speaker, but I could outline its purport. It is to the effect that we should make a partial step in disarmament.
After we had obtained for that resolution approval from the general assembly which was unanimous but with abstentions, the U.S.S.R. said they would not participate in the discussions of the disarmament commission or of the subcommittee. We were greatly disappointed to hear that, because in getting that resolution so admirably supported in the United Nations we felt we had a vote of the peoples of the world that would carry some weight with the U.S.S.R. because it reflected a world-wide opinion that they should consider the rejection of the western proposals.
We tried to make it clear to the United Nations that the resolution that was so widely supported in the general assembly was not necessarily in our opinion the only means whereby disarmament could be promoted. On October 23, 1957, I spoke in the political committee and asked our soviet friends to look at the resolution; not to regard it as coming from us in a take it or leave it manner, but to accept it on our assurance that it would be a basis for further negotiations. Well, after the U.S.S.R. stated definitely that they would not negotiate any further, they did put forward the suggestion that the disarmament commission should be made up of the 82 member nations of the United Nations, and indeed that the complexion of the general assembly itself should be reflected in the new disarmament commission.
We all felt that this was a manifestly impractical proposition, and we were bound to conclude that it was merely a propaganda move. It would be entirely unwieldy for 82 nations to sit down and discuss the problem in one meeting or series of meetings on disarmament. That was, however, put to the general assembly by the U.S.S.R. and it was rejected by the general assembly.
Even after that Canada, taking the lead in some cases and in other cases co-operating with other friendly powers, tried again to find a well-balanced and reasonable group by way of a suggestion for the composition of the disarmament commission that would satisfy the U.S.S.R. Finally there was put before the general assembly a proposal for

External Affairs
the extension and enlargement of the disarmament commission to include the members of the security council, 11, and Canada, and in addition 14 other countries. That was adopted by the general assembly to the extent that three-quarters of the governments of every group in the United Nations endorsed it. That proved unacceptable to the U.S.S.R., although at one point in our negotiations we did hope that it might be acceptable to them.
Now that the enlarged disarmament commission has been established the U.S.S.R. say they will not participate in its discussions and our only hope is that they will reconsider their views so we can sit down together with them to the end that the armament race will not be continued, because as I endeavoured to tell the political committee of the United Nations-and I have no desire to indulge in scare headlines here today-the issue is in effect and in essence human survival.
In all these arguments in the committee and in the general assembly the Russians came back time and time again to their proposal. The first part of their counterproposal is that the nations of the world who are members of the U.N. should resolve to ban the use of nuclear weapons. Since I have come to Ottawa I have had letters from many persons throughout Canada which said, "What a laudable proposal that is from the U.S.S.R."
Now, sir, one must confess it has an immediate attraction and appeal. "Ban the use of nuclear weapons." I ask you, sir, and I ask this house why, then, can we not accept this laudable proposal? The answer, the grim answer, is that a promise not to use nuclear weapons is good only until one nation decides to break it. There must be, for our security, a measure of inspection that will ensure that the undertakings in that regard are being carried out. Disarmament cannot be achieved by the stroke of a pen or the mere passing of a resolution.
My colleague the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) who was vice-chairman of the Canadian delegation at the twelfth session of the assembly, took a very active part in these negotiations, and I know he will be ready and willing to amplify what I have endeavoured to tell the house this afternoon.
In addition to disarmament, a striking characteristic of the debate had to do with the words I used a few moments ago, "human survival". It is evident that the advances or discoveries in the field of science and technology pose a new and urgent problem in international politics. We cannot solve that problem merely by talking about our endeavours of yesteryear. New scientific

weapons and scientific discoveries have provided an urgency about the solution of those problems. Canada, I can assure this house, will endeavour in every way possible to advance further discussion and negotiations with respect to disarmament. For 11 years representatives of Canada have carried on those endeavours, and we hope we can keep the Canadian flag waving in respect of a matter of such vital concern to the human race, at least to make suggestions in negotiating a first-stage agreement with the U.S.S.R.
Apart from disarmament there was consideration of political crises. One had to do particularly with Syria. The Syrians lodged a resolution with the secretary general that would provide for a discussion of the threat to their security on the Syrian-Turkish border. Several efforts were made toward negotiation in that regard. I was there when the debate opened and I can still remember the polemics and the propaganda that were indulged in by the chief delegate for the U.S.S.R. Our approach to that problem was that any nation such as Syria should have the opportunity to bring before the general assembly what it thought was a threat to its security. That did not in any way indicate that we had in mind that Turkey as a responsible member of NATO would act in an irresponsible way. But we endeavoured to provide every possible way of finding out the facts.
Hon. members may recall that King Saud of Saudi Arabia offered to intervene and mediate, and there were suggestions that the security council might come into the picture. In association with Japan, Denmark, Norway, Paraguay, Peru and Spain we put forward a resolution that would call attention to the availability of the secretary general for consultation between Syria and Turkey, or even the availability of the secretary general to carry on an investigation; and then rather dramatically Syria and Turkey decided that the debate should be terminated.
I said it was dramatic, but it was not very spectacular. I do not think the press gave it enough publicity. It really was a product of what the secretary general of the United Nations has said of the United Nations "diplomacy of reconciliation." There in the general assembly these charges and countercharges were exchanged, and it was undoubtedly felt by the U.S.S.R. that it was up to Syria in this regard; that they were losing the battle of polemics and that their propaganda concepts and objectives were being turned against them. That was indeed a victory for the United Nations and for the participation of the nations of the world in that debate in the general assembly.

* It would be an illusion, Mr. Speaker, to think that the underlying causes of tension in that area, and the fever and the rise in tempers, are gone. We would all hope that the diplomacy, the reconciliation which was provided by the United Nations could be again brought to bear on the lowering of the fever and on the lowering of tempers.
I now desire to say something about the United Nations emergency force in the Middle East. Notwithstanding press reports today with respect to another sector, the Jordanian-Israeli border, of which we in the department as yet have nothing more than we have read in the paper, I can say that the record of UNEF, the United Nations emergency force, has been one of great satisfaction not only to the U.N. but to the world. There have been on the border few incidents in recent months. Indeed, I was talking to Major General Burns and he told me that in the last few weeks there have not been any incidents on that border. Undoubtedly UNEF contributed at least to arrest the movement that might have resulted in war, and we in Canada must be proud of our participation in that force. One-fifth of the force come from Canada, 1,200 out of 6,000. We must take a particular pride in the commander in chief of the force, Major General E. L. M. Burns. On all sides he was praised by members of the general assembly in the debate that took place last Friday morning. I would say, in the words of our Prime Minister who spoke to the general assembly in September, that as long as the United Nations considers the presence of the UNEF in that particular area as necessary, Canada will continue to support by participating in its composition.
The secretary general in his recent annual report, having mentioned the temporary nature of the force, with the limited mandate in a particular area, went on to say that the value of such a force in such situations has been fully demonstrated. I would certainly subscribe to that view, as all the delegations from the west would. In that report the secretary general suggested that an agreed stand-by plan for a United Nations peace force which could be activated on short notice might be given consideration. Small wars, small conflicts, expand into great wars, and if agreement could be reached on the establishment of such a force I would think it would be a most significant step in making the United Nations a more effective organization for the maintenance of peace.
The establishment of the United Nations emergency force as an experiment gave rise to certain consequences, and one had to do with money. The estimated cost of the force during the period from November, 1956, to 96698-97
External Affairs
December 31, 1957 is in the region of $30 million. Against this sum the total amount received or firmly pledged so far is some $24 million. That includes the recent offer from the United States of $12 million and the recent offer from the United Kingdom of $1 million. It now appears that there will be a shortfall for the period ending December 31, 1957, of approximately $3 million to $4 million. It is estimated that in the year 1958 the force will cost $25 million.
I have used these figures, and I do not regard them as large or high when you put into the balance the great benefit that has followed the establishment and deployment of that force on that border, the release of tension thereby preventing further expansion of the conflict in the area. On Friday last I introduced in the general assembly a resolution for which 20 other countries offered their co-sponsorship. That resolution reaffirmed the principle that the responsibility for additional funds required in 1958 for the maintenance of this force should be shared by all members of the United Nations in accordance with the scale of assessment that is invoked for the normal United Nations budget. That resolution was adopted despite the opposition of the U.S.S.R. bloc, and was adopted by a larger majority than we expected, with the result that I can say to members of the house that the financing of UNEF is now assured.
Other Middle East isues continue to be the centre of attention at the United Nations. One of them has to do with the grave plight of the Palestinian refugees, and in this context one cannot say that any real progress has been made during the past year. The United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, to give it its full title, has continued to provide essential rations and other relief services, but shortage of funds has increasingly hampered the agency in its effort to maintain these services or to proceed in an orderly way with the limited rehabilitation projects possible under present conditions.
I am happy to report that Canada during the past nine years has been the fourth largest non-Arab contributor to Palestine refugee relief, and in 1957 Canada was the third largest contributor. We have continued to urge other countries that they should accord greater support to UNRWA in order that there will not be a further decline in the standard of living of these unfortunate refugees. The estimates for 1957-58, at present before the house, seek approval of a Canadian contribution to UNRWA of $750,000 to cover the 18-month period ending December 31, 1957. When the estimates for

External Affairs
1958-59 are brought before the next session, parliament will be asked to approve a Canadian contribution to UNRWA, of $500,000, which is relatively the same as the figure of $750,000 in relation to 18 months.
Before I turn from the United Nations I desire to inform the house of certain other contributions to the United Nations extrabudgetary programs. The following amounts are included in the 1957-58 estimates at present before the house to cover Canadian contributions to these programs of the United Nations during the calendar year 1957. In the 1958-59 estimates parliament will be asked by the government to approve Canadian contributions of the same amounts to cover the programs of these organizations during the year 1958.
These are the amounts. In addition to UNRWA there is $2 million to the United Nations expanded program of technical assistance, $200,000 to the United Nations refugee fund and $650,000 to the United Nations children's emergency fund. All these proposed contributions are on the same scale as those to which the previous parliament gave its approval.
I turn now, for want of time but not for want of subject matter, from the United Nations to another vitally important sector of our foreign policy.


Mr. Macdonald (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Would the minister permit a question? I wonder whether the minister could assure the house that notwithstanding Canada's negative vote in the economic and social council, Canada will support the SUNFED program which is currently being debated in the general assembly.


Sidney Earle Smith: I am very happy to respond to that question. There are negotiations going on now at the United Nations-the Minister of Finance referred to this in the house last week-with respect to the providing of financial assistance outside of the Colombo plan to nations not only in southeast and south Asia but throughout the world. I would ask the hon. member to believe me when I say that I do not regard the negative vote against the proposal of SUNFED as indicating that the Canadian government will not support a proposal that I hope will come out of the negotiations.
Those negotiations are still being carried on and, as the Minister of Finance stated, the government has not yet heard of their results and has, of course, made no decision. When the decision in that regard is made the government will quickly inform the house. Without going into the details-and it would not be fitting for me to disclose the details of

negotiations-I think perhaps another proposal will be even more helpful to these underdeveloped countries than the particular SUNFED plan.
If I may leave the United Nations and go to the Colombo plan, I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether there is any single task in the international field which Canada has undertaken that should receive greater approval and endorsation from Canadians of all walks of life and all political persuasions. No reasonable man could doubt the benefits which this type of enterprise is bringing to all of us in the western world, in the non-communist world, to put it that way, whether we are benefactors or whether we are beneficiaries of the operation of the Colombo plan.
Two of my colleagues in the government have recently been in south and southeast Asia, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Macdonnell) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne). They have returned to Ottawa, and from each of them I have heard of the unceasing struggle of the undeveloped countries in that part of the world to raise their standards of living. The hon. member for St. John's West, who attended in my place the Saigon meeting of the consultative committee of the Colombo plan, can testify to the benefits that have accrued from Canada's investment in these particular projects.
These grants, hon. members of the house -and I say this from the bottom of my being-are not hand-outs. We should really think of them as helping hands. There is another feature, members of the house, about our investment in the Colombo plan. Famine, distress and low standards of living create the seed-beds of unrest and indeed could create-and in some instances have done so-the seed-bed of war. It worries me to talk in this vein, but if anyone wants to talk about these matters in mere monetary terms, I would offer a good argument and, I think, a conclusive one that in time these countries in which we are making investments will become good customers and provide much opportunity for Canada. But I put that suggestion forward in second or third place.
As some hon. members of this house know, particularly the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), the Colombo plan was a concept initiated and brought about in the commonwealth. Here is another instance of the commonwealth creating a nucleus which in due course produced a strengthened, forward-looking and beneficial international enterprise. In the routine aspect of carrying forward the program under the Colombo plan there always has had to be and there will

have to be discussions with engineers, administrators and economists. Then there will have to be discussions with the countries to whom help might be offered, as to their needs. When decisions in that regard are made, Mr. Speaker, we will of course report to the house.
On November 22 in this session of parliament the Prime Minister informed the house that the government will seek parliamentary approval of an appropriation for 1958-59 of $35 million. The estimates that will be considered in a few days provide for a contribution of $34,400,000. We are proposing an increase of $600,000 for 1958-59.
Time does not permit me to go into detail with respect to other parts of south and southeast Asia but in passing I would refer to the work of the international commissions in Indochina. The task of the commission in Cambodia is, in our opinion, about completed. There have been difficulties in the way of dissolving or disbanding the commission. In Laos where we are members of an international commission, after nearly three years of negotiations between the royal government and the Pathet Lao, an agreement has finally been reached whereby the Pathet Lao which has been controlling one part of Laos will be integrated into the national community. I seize this opportunity to say that we sympathize with the desire of the Laotian people to achieve a political settlement within the terms of the Geneva agreements of 1954. We hope that this latest development will result in a strong Laos and a continuation of the democratic approach that has been followed by the royal government.
Viet-Nam remains divided. It is in this area where the sort of international supervision that is provided by the international commissions has been most important for the maintenance of peace.
In relation to south and southeast Asia I would reiterate what I have endeavoured to say, namely that the recent visits of ministers of the government to that part of the world should be taken as indicative of our interest in the area, our close interest in commonwealth ties, our desire to help the countries of the area to improve their standard of living and of our willingness to do our part in preserving peace.
A few moments ago I mentioned the commonwealth. May I interpolate here-and this is a personal note-that after I reached the United Nations in the middle of September I was asked to attend a meeting of the commonwealth group. It was not a bloc but a group. I am sure that no one else in the room could appreciate how thrilled I was, 96698-97i
External Affairs
indeed how excited I was, at that first meeting. Here sitting around a horseshoe table were representatives of ten independent nations of the British commonwealth, men and women coming from various climes, of various religions and cultures. There they sat. It seemed to me-and this is the basis of my thrill and of my excitement-that there was before me a brilliant page of British history, the bringing of colonies to nationhood. There was no treaty binding them together. Indeed I would say, for the want of a better word, that there was something mystical in their adherence to common ideals of the dignity of the individual, of justice, fairness and fair play.
I now come closer to home, Mr. Speaker, and I desire for a moment or two to mention our neighbours in this hemisphere. I would point out first our relationship to the republics of Latin America. Some of my first conversations at the United Nations in September were with representatives of the republics of Latin America. Since I have been in Ottawa I am gradually beginning to get to know better the ambassadors from Latin America. I know that in the assembly and the councils of the United Nations our Canadian representatives over the years have acquired a deep appreciation of the strength, the wisdom and the vision which representatives of the Latin republics have brought to the discussions, deliberations and decisions of that body.
I refer, just by way of example, to only two. Colombia and Brazil made contributions in men and equipment to UNEF. Colombia and Brazil have each served three times on the security council. I think of Brazil today, which is the largest Latin nation in the world, with a population larger than that of Spain or Italy or France, with enormous natural resources scarcely tapped, a country of great promise. We have traded with those countries over many years, indeed for a century I am informed. I hope that the substantial volume of our two-way trade with the Latin American nations today is only a stage on the way to greater expansion.
But it is only in the post-war years since 1945 that there has been an increased exchange of personnel, visitors and businessmen between Canada and the Latin American republics. Attending our colleges and universities are a considerable number of students who have come to us from Latin America. Visitors and tourists are increasing. Commercial aviation has been a significant factor in helping us to become better acquainted with the Latin American countries. The Mexican air line operates a regular service

External Affairs
between Mexico City and Windsor, Ontario. Our own Canadian Pacific Air Lines now ranks as a major air service in the Americas. Those 20 independent nations are playing an increasing part in deliberations that are designed for the solution of international problems-and I express the hope that the cordial relations which now exist with those 20 nations will be enhanced and increased.
I come now, Mr. Speaker, to our closest neighbour, the United States. A kindly providence has willed the geographical location of that country with respect to Canada. With the United States we share a continent and a common heritage from many lands beyond the seas, moulded around political philosophies which have become, in some measure perhaps, the central core of the institutions of both our countries. These philosophies, coming from our twin motherlands, Great Britain and France, have been shared by us as comrades in arms during two world wars. Again, when we fought with the Americans under the flag of the United Nations in Korea, we Canadians knew the value of our American friends.
We have been in close association with our neighbour in the United Nations and we also work closely with them in NATO. Particularly those of us who remember the years before the first world war, welcome their assumption of world leadership during the last two decades. I must however observe that sometimes in pursuit of common objectives the means chosen by the United States to effect these ends may have side effects which are injurious to Canada and which in many instances are not made clear to the American people and of which therefore they are not properly aware.
When we in Canada consider that such effects may stem from any action or inaction on the part of the United States and may affect what we deem to be the best and just interests of our country and our people we must, without petulance or sophomoric sensitivity, seek from our United States neighbours the consideration of those effects. There is nothing wrong or improper with conscientiously facing the problems or difficulties separating true friends. This is also true in the field of international relations. What to my mind would be wrong and improper would be for us to dig and dig for slights and to magnify oversights. It would be equally wrong on the part of Canada and equally improper for the two governments to allow old and burning problems to fester, if I may use that word, and to continue unresolved. It is in that way that misunderstandings grow and fair-mindedness of the people and their governments may be warped. There have been problems between our 
countries throughout our history. The territorial part which we know as Canada did not exist in the early days but those who have read the biography of Sir John A. Macdonald by Professor Creighton will appreciate what I have been saying.
From those early years there have been problems between us and they have continued, indeed, down to our present difficulties with respect to the United States wheat surplus disposal programs. I declare, Mr. Speaker, that considerate frankness will not endanger true friendship between our countries. Above all, it is of paramount importance to international peace that Canada and the United States, unequal as they are with respect to military and economic force but equal in their common respect for the dignity of the individual, should set a continued example to the whole world of how friendly nations can live together.
May I state as simply as I can how I see the development of our relations with the United States. We must be friends; friendship however means something more than the absence of enmity. Friendship really means the existence of positive and effective interest on the part of each nation in the welfare of the other.
In recent weeks we have been dramatically stopped in our tracks; we have been forced to give closer examination to our collective security arrangements by reason of the success of the U.S.S.R. in the launching of the intercontinental ballistic missile and in the launching of two earth satellites. It has been a shock but it has had a salutary effect in terms of the re-appraisal of our common defence.
We in the democracies are apt to relax until pressure is brought upon us by the course of events; then we jump into action. I do think that in this age of infinite risk we should have some concern about this characteristic tendency to relax in the absence of pressure. That attitude of relaxation when there is no pressure on us may, and in this case probably has, tempted fate. However, we have now been dramatically reminded of the terrible menace of nuclear warfare and as a result all members of NATO recognize they are faced with the necessity of making far-reaching decisions in the military field while, at the same time, having to cope with political problems of exceptional complexity. I claim your indulgence at this time as I desire to make a careful statement in this regard. I wish to say a word about military and political problems because I think the success of NATO in rising to the occasion will depend largely on how it can merge its military and its political objectives.

Despite soviet accusations that NATO is an aggressor and was designed for aggression, the sole military purpose of NATO-this has been declaimed over and over again and we have no reason to doubt it-is to deter aggression by providing firm evidence that aggressors would be quickly and successfully met if they should attack any member of the alliance. In NATO there is a formidable capability-as General Norstad stated in Ottawa 10 days ago-to deter aggression. In this connection he also said that this capability is not altered or modified by the possession by any other power of a nuclear intercontinental ballistic missile.
This is a field, I am aware, where theories abound and often conflict. I do not intend to do more at this point than to state the government's position, indeed its conviction, that the value of NATO as a deterrent remains intact and that it is incumbent upon us-we who have banded together in NATO -to exploit the opportunities which exist for closer co-operation in the fields of military, economic and scientific affairs.
We must seek for co-operation by increased exchange of scientific and technical information and from the stimulation of scientific education and research in the NATO countries. We should be able to find that further co-operation is possible in the economic production of modern weapons.
Military problems will loom large on the agenda of the NATO meeting which is to be held next month in Paris but, in the minds of many governments and of many peoples, that meeting will be judged just as much by its achievement in the non-military field as in the military field and, with the challenge of communism all the time advancing, NATO must move with the times in the field of politics.
It is dreadfully essential that we of the NATO alliance should intensify and develop our military contribution. But that is not enough. It is essential that we should work together to improve our machinery for consultation and promote the intimacy of our intramural understanding. These obligations are with us and they must be observed, but they are limited. To confine ourselves in NATO to attaining them alone would be to cultivate our own interdependence as members of NATO without realizing that the health and strength of the alliance depends on its relations with the world outside. There is, in other words, a global interdependence in this age of scientific discovery and nationalist ferment, and it is important for us and important for NATO not to underestimate that need.
No one should think of letting down his guard at the present time; no prudent man
External Affairs
can deny the need for defence insurance. What I am suggesting is that the security organization will be successful or unsuccessful according to the degree of intelligence with which its political policies are formulated and pursued.
To give an example, I turn for a moment to the problem of soviet activity in uncommitted neutral states. This is a serious and growing danger. How are they going? Are they going toward the soviets or toward the west? This cannot be ignored by NATO members, and yet NATO as such is perhaps not well equipped to deal with such a problem. The difficulty lies in the fact that while the Asian and African nations which are uncommitted have no more desire than we have to see greater domination of other countries by the U.S.S.R. Having regard to the historic relations they have had with the west and having regard to their desire to flex their muscles as new and independent nations, they might think that the steps which are being taken at NATO are designed for our security, and of course they are, and they would not necessarily adopt them wholeheartedly as their measures.
We must recognize, too, that nationalism is not necessarily synonymous with communism in young countries, but we have to realize also that nationalism has been exploited by communism. There are real risks in dealing with these uncommitted nations. Their peoples may succumb to the blandishments and to the plausible and insidious appeal of soviet tactics, but we must respect them as independent nations. We must work with them and assure them that we regard them as independent nations, and try to establish a mature and wise relationship with them. Or, to put it another way, unless we assure them by word and deed that our participation in NATO is complementary to and not in conflict with our membership in the commonwealth and in the United Nations we may not be able to make much appeal to them.
Canada is a middle power with roots in the three associations, in NATO, in the commonwealth and in the United Nations. I think Canada has a special reason for avoiding an absolutely rigid dependence on any one of these organizations as the sole instrument or channel of its foreign policy.
I come now to my final point in relation to the NATO meeting projected for Paris in December. The house will not expect me- and even if it did I could not do this-to predict the specific terms of the agenda or the likely outcome of the deliberations. I am more concerned to suggest to this house the general philosophy which I think should govern our approach to that meeting. We

External Affairs
must, as I have already indicated, start from the premise that new and intensified efforts at military and scientific co-operation are essential, and we must be prepared to do our part in developing that co-operation. We must, in the second place, in view of the unhappy events of the last two or three weeks, renew our determination to consult frankly on issues which have caused, or are likely to cause, divisions in NATO. And, thirdly, to return to the point I was trying to make a few moments ago, we must assure the world outside NATO that no one need fear aggression from us; that far from regarding the forthcoming meeting as an end in itself, the whole world, including ourselves, regards it as a symbol of our determination to protect ourselves and, no less important, of our genuine and sustained interests in finding ultimate peaceful solutions to the issues that divide us from the communist world.
I have endeavoured to put before this house a diagram of Canada's relations with other nations. Nothing that I have said should obscure our intense resolution to reduce tensions between the west and the U.S.S.R. No sane person could run the risk of shutting any promising door on the possibility of co-existence. Yet-and this is not double talk-we should not fall into a propaganda plot; we should not be lulled into complacency by empty or hollow professions such as happened after the Geneva meeting. We must keep up our defences pending the arrival of the day for which we have hoped, the arrival of the day of substantial mutual trust between the west and the east. And I should add this: we must have convincing proof that the U.S.S.R. has abandoned its policies of domination. Co-existence cannot be used as a cover for subversion on the part of the U.S.S.R. in free countries. What I have been trying to say, sir, is that we must keep our powder dry and put the hand out.
Mr. Speaker, I have just been handed a message. President Eisenhower has sustained a cerebral spasm, apparently very serious. The White House now says it is a form of heart attack. That is not unrelated to what I have been trying to say.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, before I say anything else I think I will be voicing the feeling of all hon. members of this house when I express our sense of shock and regret at the news we have just heard; of the tragic misfortune which has befallen a great president of a great country, a man who has served not only his country but our own country and the world in war and in peace. We must

hope, Mr. Speaker, that this misfortune is only temporary and that the president will soon return to health and vigour. The information which I have received is to the effect that this is likely to be the case. I know we will all hope sincerely that is the case.
And now, Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my hon. friend who has just spoken, not repeating the congratulations and good wishes which I have already addressed to him in the house and outside the house, but to thank him for his comprehensive and very interesting review of the international situation as he sees it. I know that he has not been in office very long but he has already entered into the duties of that office with vigour and, I know, with the highest ideals. Perhaps I may say now what it was not possible for me to say when I occupied his position, that I am sure he is already grateful for the help and assistance he has received and will receive from the officials of the Department of External Affairs, a body of men who I think are not excelled in intelligence, devotion and industry by the foreign service of any country in the world. Perhaps I may also be permitted to thank him for his very kind words about the honour that has been recently bestowed on me because of my work in external affairs over the years.
The minister referred to his election and to the fact that he was not opposed in that by-election and expressed the hope that perhaps this would be the beginning of a habit. I must tell him that when I entered the house in a similar way in a by-election some years ago I was also not opposed by a Conservative candidate but in my case it was not the beginning of a habit and I suspect it will not be in his case either. However, we noted with interest how successful he was in what I might call a "dry run", or perhaps a "red run" would be more appropriate in this case.
In regard to what the minister has said about the necessity of maintaining good relations with other countries and in regard to the principles he laid down which would help to bring that about-and I am not going to go into this in detail-we on this side are of course in complete agreement. He did not .-and I do not criticize him for this-go into detail on some of these matters but in regard to the principles he enunciated I am sure there will be no disagreement on this side of the house.
It is a good thing for parliament to develop and maintain as much unity as is possible in such things as external affairs and as I have said more than once-and on more than one occasion I have been the beneficiary of this sentiment-however vigorously we

may disagree in this house on domestic affairs and indeed on foreign affairs when it is unavoidable, we should do our best to bring about a situation where it is possible for politics to end at the water's edge.
So far as the foreign policy of the present government is concerned, in so far as we have been able to determine it during its short period in office, there does not seem to have been very much change. I think we on this side can welcome that for the reasons which I have just indicated. But as events a year ago showed there can be division, even vigorous if not bitter division, in this house on fundamental questions of foreign policy. If I detected in some of the observations of the minister a change in attitude on some of these matters from that which I experienced in the house about a year ago perhaps that is an evidence of the chastening effect of responsibility in office. In that connection I think the minister's references to the United Nations are an example of what I have in mind. It was just about a year ago on January 22, 1957 that the present Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Churchill), as reported at page 527 of Hansard of that date, said:
-we are making a great mistake-
The hon. member at that time was criticizing our policy at the United Nations. He said: -we are making a great mistake in placing too much reliance on this organization-
He meant the United Nations-
-for the preservation of peace.
He later added in his statement that it is the height of folly to place so much dependence on it. When he was itemizing the factors on which our foreign policy should be based he placed the United Nations at the bottom of the list at that time. The other factors mentioned by the present Minister of Trade and Commerce were the commonwealth, NATO, the United States and then the United Nations. Therefore I heard with some satisfaction the Prime Minister's (Mr. Diefenbaker's) statement at the United Nations on September 23, 1957 which has been referred to and indeed this particular paragraph was quoted by my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith). The Prime Minister said:
Support of the United Nations is the cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy . . . we believe it will grow stronger-
I echo that observation.
-because it represents . . . the deep longing of mankind to strive for and attain peace and justice.
There is a relationship, I think, between this feeling that the United Nations is the cornerstone of policy and the policy which we on this side tried to bring about last
External Affairs
autumn when we were in office in connection with the Middle East. It will be, of course, very fresh in the minds of many hon. members of this house that last autumn some members of the present government when they were in opposition rejected United Nations' intervention in that dispute and attacked us very vigorously for supporting and indeed doing our best to initiate and strengthen such intervention. That Canadian policy which was based on support of the United Nations in this matter was characterized by hon. members opposite at that time as abandoning our friends. Indeed, they used stronger language than that and again I quote the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he said on November 27, as reported at page 100 of Hansard:
-why in the world should we not have stood by our friends and allies . . . But no, in their hour of need we stood on the sidelines.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I did not think it was fair then to say we stood on the sidelines and I do not think it is fair now to characterize our action in those terms. We did not stand on the sidelines, but rather we did our best to support United Nations' intervention. If we at that time had followed the policy which was advocated by some hon. gentlemen opposite we would have had to vote against the intervention of the United Nations in this issue at all, and if that motion had carried and if the United Nations had not been permitted to intervene, believe me the United Nations today would not today be the cornerstone of our foreign policy.
Indeed I doubt whether the United Nations as a political organization would have been able to survive that kind of decision.
Mr. Speaker, that was one reason why I myself greeted with great pleasure the appointment of my hon. friend as Secretary of State for External Affairs. I recall how at that time he had taken what I thought was a very sound and forthright view of the Suez crisis and our policy toward it. I remember that when speaking in Quebec on April 3, 1957 to the English-speaking union in that city he said, according to the press report:
The role of Canada in the great British family of nations had been particularly noticeable and brilliant during the Middle East crisis last autumn.
He also repeated on that occasion what he said today, and I could not agree more with him, that Canada's foreign policy is not merely a reflection of the United States or of the United Kingdom. This is from the press report:
Using the Suez crisis, as an example, Dr. Smith showed that this independent policy-

External Affairs
This Canadian policy, working through the United Nations-this is my own interpolation-
-had not broken the ties and had not weakened the structure-
-of the commonwealth; I confess, of course, that when my hon. friend assumed office a little later-and we would not expect him to do otherwise-he characterized our action of a year ago in somewhat less forthright terms of approval, but he did say that he agreed in the main with what we did then. He made the qualification, however,-and I think it is an important one-that there could have been better communication within the commonwealth on this issue at that time -I agree with that, but I think it was not the fault of a Canadian government that there was no communciation at that time in regard to the Suez crisis. Perhaps at this press conference the minister might have pursued the matter a little farther but the Prime Minister interrupted him at that point.
In his statement I thought the minister made some very appropriate references to the commonwealth and to the important part it is playing in the world and the important part it should play in our development of foreign policy as well. He mentioned his own feelings when he went down to the United Nations and for the first time sat around the table with the 10 members of independent commonwealth governments from all the continents of the world except perhaps South America. I remember also-and perhaps this is an even more dramatic tribute, dramatic evidence, of the value of this association-sitting around the table with those same commonwealth members a year ago when we were not in agreement on important policy, when we were split not only two ways but three ways and four ways and yet during those difficult and indeed tragic times that friendly, fraternal association characterized by those meetings around the table persisted. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is the real test of an association, the ability to remain in friendly and intimate contact when you cannot agree on policy. Even when we do not agree on policy within the commonwealth we always try to agree, and that is the test of an association.
Perhaps I might join with my hon. friend in welcoming into this association the new independent state of Malaya. I recall how fitting were the words he used at the United Nations on the occasion of the entry of Malaya into the United Nations. That entry into the commonwealth of another Asian state, Mr. Speaker, underlines the fact that this commonwealth of nations is now in its membership predominantly Asian-African.

Of course, the core, the heart, the centre of it remains the United Kingdom, and it will always be that; but five-sixths of the population of the nations of the commonwealth are now Asian-African.
That introduces new problems of commonwealth relationships which will undoubtedly -it has already-introduce certain difficulties which have at times resulted almost in strains to our relationship. But it also gives us new opportunities inside the commonwealth, and perhaps one of the greatest and most valuable roles this association can play-and this has been said by many people before-is that it can act, it can become a bridge-it is now a bridge when there are very few bridges indeed-between Asia and the west. I join with my hon. friend in the hope that we shall do everything we can in this country to maintain and strengthen the association.
The minister also spoke of the work going on at the United Nations and I should like to congratulate him, the vice-chairman and other members of the delegation on what I think is the constructive part they have been playing down there in New York. I know a great many of the discussions, of the most difficult discussions, have centred around disarmament and I know they may have been disappointed, though they worked very hard indeed to bring about a compromise. They must have been disappointed when their efforts were not successful but only because the soviet union has refused to participate in the new committee which they and other delegations were successful in setting up. But I would not myself indulge in any great disappointment in that failure in substance because if it were not possible to work out these armaments problems in a subcommittee of five, including the four great powers, then I doubt whether a committee of 25, even with a broader composition, and including more points of view would have any greater chance of success.
I also agree with what the minister said about the effort to bring about a ban on the use of atomic and nuclear weapons. This is something that appeals to us very much indeed and must do so when we contemplate the effect of the use of those weapons on our very survival; but nevertheless it is essential, as it was considered by us when we were in office, that prohibition of that kind, to be effective and to bring about not only the ban but the confidence and trust which must go with a ban of this kind, must be surrounded by adequate provision for inspection and control. That is where the main difficulty occurs, and a difficulty which it has not yet been possible to surmount.

I would also like to join with the minister in the tribute he paid to the United Nations emergency force for the fine work it is doing in this tense and disturbed area of the world under a distinguished Canadian. Perhaps the importance of that work can be exaggerated, but nevertheless that force did bring some kind of order to a border which was in flames.
If it had not reached that area at that time and come between the opposing forces that limited conflict might have spread into something much wider, deeper and more catastrophic.
Therefore, this particular experiment, because that is all it is, has shown that the United Nations can be useful in that kind of operation. I congratulate my hon. friend for the resolution which he introduced on behalf of the Canadian delegation which would, I hope, have the effect of making this kind of thing more permanent, make it easier to set up a permanent organization and perhaps encourage the construction on those foundations of something which will be of more permanent value.
The minister then went on to talk about relations with the United States. I suppose in so far as difficulties and problems are concerned no relations between Canada and any other country-I am talking now about difficulties and complications-are as important as those with our neighbour, the United States, which, in the words of the minister, a kindly Providence has willed should be our closest neighbour. There have been occasions in the house when it has seemed to me that on some sides there has been inadequate recognition of the kindliness of Providence in putting us alongside this great neighbour. But, nevertheless, when the dust of debate clears away we are all conscious in the house of that good fortune when we compare our lot as a middle power alongside the United States, which may be a bigger power but is a partner power, with that, if you like, of a satellite communist nation alongside the Soviet union.
The minister said, I hope I am not misinterpreting what he said, that perhaps we did not make our position sufficiently clear to our neighbour when they took action which had a harmful effect on us. He went on, and I agree with him, to say that we should not be afraid to talk to them about mutual problems in a very frank and forthright way. I agree with that, Mr. Speaker, and that is one reason why I should talk this afternoon about one matter which seems to me to be not only important in our relationships with our neighbour but which might, if we are not
External Affairs
careful, lead to difficulties and complications which could be avoided. I talk about this also because there may not be any other opportunity during this session and it certainly is an important aspect of our foreign relations.
I refer to the continental air defence agreement with the United States. I am going to ask a good many questions about it because I think we are entitled to ask these questions. We have done so already in this House of Commons and I do not think that we have received answers which clear up our worries about this subject. What is this agreement? How was it reached? Well, Mr. Speaker, we do not yet know. There have been answers to questions in the house. I and members of the opposition have characterized those answers as confusing and contradictory, a characterization which has been repudiated by the Prime Minister. I think, however, it is accurate to say that the answers have not been very clarifying and that the two statements made by the Prime Minister on this subject have not added much to the clarification to which I think we are entitled.
It was complained by the Prime Minister himself, that we are pressing for secret security information. That, Mr. Speaker, is not the case, as I hope to show. But I do think that the house, and through the house the country, should be given at least as much information about this matter and the implications of it as is being given to the people of the United States by the secretary of state, Mr. Dulles. Indeed, it is in part the statements that have emanated from Washington and other places in the United States by persons in high positions of responsibility that have made it all the more necessary in our view that more information should be given here.
I do not think it is fair and I do not think it is right that responsibility in regard to this matter should be evaded by accusing us of asking for information which cannot be given on security grounds, and I do not think it is accurate to try to draw any parallel with the Ogdensburg agreement which is not the same kind of agreement at all and which was in fact tabled and discussed in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister said the other day that we were departing from the normal course followed in the house in asking for this kind of information. I should like to quote to him from some of his previous speeches or if I cannot do that at the present time I should like merely to remind him of some of the speeches he made when on this side in regard to parliament's right to know. It has been suggested by the Prime Minister and I think

External Affairs
by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes) that this North American air defence command, NORAD, is a normal development of NATO and that the arrangements regarding it were made through the United States-Canadian planning group of NATO, one of the regional groupings of NATO.
But I would point out, and there should be no misunderstanding on this score, that the NORAD air defence command or, indeed, continental defence generally-I am talking about North American continental defence generally-is not directly related to NATO at all and this particular headquarters is not a NATO command in any sense of the word. I wish it were. There is no NATO supervision or control of this organization, this agency. The regional planning group of NATO to which reference has been made is something very different indeed from a NATO command.
What we would like to have in connection with this important development in United States-Canadian relations is not any secret information about the plans which this agency may be developing or the representatives of the two defence departments may be developing. What we would like to have is information about the principles under which it is operating, the relations of the two governments concerning it and some statement which will clear up the contradictions which we think have already been made. Certainly we would expect any intergovernmental agreement, as it has been called, between the two governments of a formal, binding character to be made public but that is very different from saying that we would expect the plans under that agreement to be made public. Some of these are obviously bound to be secret and could not be made public.
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we did with the North Atlantic pact. When that was tabled, discussed and debated in the house for two or three days it was not, as the Prime Minister said the other day, primarily because it meant Canadian troops would be serving under it beyond the confines of Canada. When we discussed NATO we did not know at that time where they would be serving. In any event, if that is the main reason for bringing agreements of this kind before the House of Commons, I suppose under this agreement there will be Canadians serving outside Canada in the United States of America. Indeed, some are there already.
So far the information we have on this agreement is, as I have said, in our view confusing and contradictory. Therefore I should

like to ask a few more questions concerning it. For instance, I should like to know how much consideration was given to a plan of this importance? Was it discussed in the cabinet defence committee? How often was it discussed in full cabinet?


Mr, Green:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Is he asking members of the present government to disclose on how many occasions this question was discussed in cabinet?


Thomas Miller Bell: That is what he said.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No; he did not.


Howard Charles Green: If so, how does he justify asking a question of that kind in view of the oath he himself took when he became a cabinet minister?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that is not a very difficult question to answer. Indeed, when the Prime Minister was talking about our own relationship to this matter, he did not hesitate to put on the record communications about cabinet discussions, as he thought they were, on this subject. They were communications which did not make it clear from whom they were or to whom they were addressed or whether or not they were cabinet documents, I am not asking what was discussed in cabinet concerning this or any other matter. I am a privy councillor. I have taken the privy councillor's oath and I know what it means.


Howard Charles Green: You had better read it again.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am trying to find out-if this matter is so important as has been indicated-how much consideration was given to it in cabinet, whether it was discussed interdepartmentally or by the cabinet defence committee before it went to the full cabinet. Surely there is no violation of the privy councillor's oath of secrecy in disclosing that kind of information. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we should not be so greatly interested in this matter now if more information had been given about it when the agreement was first announced to the press at a time when it caused a great deal of attention. I think it was last August when it was announced at a press statement, after which a press conference was held in August by the Minister of National Defence. So far as the press statement is concerned, it merely states that an agreement has been reached presumably between the two governments, to set up a system of integrated operational control of the air defence forces in the continental United States and Canada; that for

that purpose an integrated command in the United States under a United States commander was set up with a Canadian deputy, and that plans and procedures would be worked out.
When it was asked in this house: Are these plans for an integrated defence under this organization now effective, the Minister of National Defence on November 5 said "yes, on an interim basis until the formal agreement has been drawn up". But he will agree with me, I know, when I say that when this matter was first made public and when it caused so much interest no mention was made of this two-stage procedure. Therefore what is the nature of this interim agreement between our two countries, on such an important matter, under which this headquarters is now operating? What is the formal agreement contemplated to which reference has already been made? Can everything be done under this interim agreement which is contemplated under the formal agreement?
At the August press conference to which I have referred the minister, dealing with some of these questions, said that the integrated headquarters would develop plans and procedures required for the tremendously rapid decisions which will have to be taken. There is no doubt that in an emergency they will have to be taken rapidly but they will be taken by whom? At a press conference the minister said, and I quote from a record made at that conference:
I think that the commander (who would be an American) or in his absence the deputy commander will decide on the proper action.
That is a quotation from a record made at the press conference. Then, as he is reported, he went on to say this and I quote again from this record:
It is a matter of seconds-there is no time for consultation. If war comes they will put their agreed-on plans into effect.
Does that mean, Mr. Speaker, that this can be done and the decisions to which reference has been made therefore taken only "if war comes"?
The minister appeared to answer his own question, and this is where some of our confusion began when, according to this report, he added that the joint operational control will become effective "as soon as a group of planes has been determined to be hostile". That means that that decision might have to be taken-and I certainly agree with this- before war comes. Therefore, in the light of this press conference and in the light of the statement made at that time, surely hon. members opposite should not have been surprised when we had some questions to ask
External Affairs
about this matter on the assembly of parliament. What about the answer to those questions in parliament in clearing up some of these ambiguities of the earlier questions and answers? On November 5, in answer to a question-and I may say that I am quoting from page 758 of Hansard-the Minister of National Defence said this:
-the arrangements for setting up this command-
That is NORAD.
-followed a similar pattern to those governing our forces serving with the supreme allied command in Europe and the naval forces in the Atlantic under the supreme allied commander, Atlantic . . . and followed closely the procedure which had been set up during the Mackenzie-President Roosevelt conversations before the last war . . . for the mutual defence of this continent.
I contend, Mr. Speaker-and I have already said this-that there really is no basis for that kind of parallel at all between those two situations. The NATO treaty was debated in this house for days and the Ogdens-burg agreement was also discussed before the house. Yet on the same day the Minister of National Defence, in answer to another question, seemed to me to contradict his own statement at the press conference of August. As reported at page 758 of Hansard he said this:
In the event of a national emergency occurring General Partridge,-
That is the United States commander.
-after consultation with the Canadian and United States governments, would be able to commit either American or Canadian forces in the defence of this country.
Naturally, after his having said that, we asked him how would consultation take place and he replied the next day "by telephone or other means". The Globe and Mail next day characterized that reply as "arrant and dangerous nonsense". The Winnipeg Tribune put it in this way, "Slogan should be shoot now, telephone later".
General Partridge himself had said, however, on September 6, that he did not have to obtain first the permission even of the president of the United States or to wire Washington in an emergency. The secretary of state, Mr. Dulles, on November 20-and this is more recent evidence-said this, according to the press report of his statement:
If an attack were made on NATO forces the decision to shoot would be made by the commander on the spot.
If this command is not a NATO one, nevertheless American and Canadian forces presumably defending our own continent are NATO forces.
Then to come back to the minister's reply in the House of Commons on November 7, it seemed to me that he really had watered

External Affairs
down this command to a purely planning agency, and emphasized quite rightly that the decision to go to war must always rest with the government. No other interpretation would be tolerable. But that does not, oi course, answer the question. What about the decision to put planes into action? Does that await a declaration of war? If not, who makes the necessary decision? Also, if this command is merely a planning group, then why all the fuss about it? Why make so much of it? Why make so much of it and why make this announcement about it in July and August under an interim arrangement? Why not wait until parliament met in October when we could have learned all about it?
It seems to me that the crux of the correct Canadian position could be put into a single sentence: If General Partridge and the air defence command of the United States have any authority over Canadian forces they should have it as officers responsible not only to the United States but also to Canada. That is the situation in Paris at the present time and it has worked very well there in the NATO command. If, as may be assumed, General Partridge has to secure the authority of the president before he launches into the air the forces under his command-unless an attack has already begun-and those forces include Canadian forces, then surely he must also have authority from the government of Canada.
If this is to be included in any intergovernmental agreement we would like to know about it. If authorization is to be given in advance to act under certain conditions, which may well be necessary in the circumstances under which we live today, then those conditions must be clearly defined and agreed to by Canada as well as the United States, through its constitutional authorities acting in accordance with constitutional practice. Yet, from the answers we have received, it is very difficult indeed to find out just what is the situation.
Now it is not a question of approving or disapproving the setting up of a continental command; how can we approve or disapprove of such a thing when we really do not yet know anything about it. It is not a question of giving up or hanging on to sovereignty. We have previously acted in ways which involve the abdication, in the interests of our security, of some of our sovereignty. Perhaps rather than using the word abdication I should say we have made our sovereignty work for our security and that is the only way a country can guarantee its security in these times. We have shown this by our participation in the European forces

of NATO and I am sure we would be glad to do the same thing in respect of our participation in continental defence if it is found necessary to work in that way after discussion and approval by this house.
Now that I have mentioned NATO, I would like to say something about this organization which, in my opinion, remains indispensable to our policy of collective security. I was very glad to hear what the hon. minister had to say about the approach of the government and himself to NATO. He indicated, and I certainly agree with him, that it is regrettable that in NATO we seem to act	only	after	we have	received	someshock	from	those	who,	in	a sense,	were
responsible for NATO in the first place.
This	has	been	very	dramatically	demonstrated in our reaction to the launching by the soviet union of the satellites. That indeed	was	a surprise	and	a shock, but
perhaps it should not have been so much of a surprise to us. If we had been aware of what was going on in the soviet union, it certainly would not have been. However, the reaction which has taken place as a result of this shock, so far as NATO is concerned, has I think been a healthy one. It has underlined the necessity of a stronger and more unified organization; it has I think also emphasized the necessity of a stronger and more imaginative diplomacy. In that regard perhaps we would do well, without minimizing the importance of the United Nations as a great forum for the discussion and hammering out of international problems on a world basis, to pay greater attention to the resources and effectiveness of well-tried and normal channels of diplomacy, as we face these new problems.
I was reading in the New York Times just the other day a review of an article by a distinguished American and former ambassador, Mr. John C. Wiley. He said, and this is worthy of attention today:
Today it is of vital importance to edge, if possible, the grave issues of the moment back into normal diplomatic channels . . . Perhaps only a meeting in the valley, a meeting on the working level, could begin to disentangle the tortured skein ... a meeting under the tyranny neither of clock nor calendar.
If I emphasize, as I believe my hon. friend emphasized, the necessity of pursuing that kind of diplomacy vigorously and effectively in our desire to try to solve, one by one and step by step, the problems which now divide the world, that does not mean that we need to weaken in any way shape or form either our collective defence or our collective action in NATO. So far as closer co-operation and unity in NATO are concerned, I welcome and I am sure all members of the

official opposition welcome this meeting to take place at the summit in December and I hope that as a result of that meeting some steps will be taken to bring about the closer unity which we, when we were in government along with our friends in NATO, were not able to make effective.
I know how big the problem is; I know how when there is a shock everybody talks about unity and when we recover from the shock we go back to our old ways of doing things individually. Certainly the problem is not a simple one and to solve it we will have to use NATO more as an agent for consultation and co-operation than we have done in the past.
Mr. Spaak, the very energetic and able secretary general of NATO put it this way, and I cannot think of any better text for the next meeting of the NATO council than this speech which he gave in Bruges during September of last year. Said Mr. Spaak:
It remains to be seen now whether one can start a discussion amongst the members of the Atlantic community, a real preliminary consultation which is really loyal and really complete, that is to say, before the individual governments have come to final decisions. I must tell you frankly that the success of this stage is essential to the survival of the Atlantic alliance and I do think that if we do not succeed in achieving that, and if in its day to day political life the large countries of the alliance did not, with their lesser allies, succeed in finding common ground upon which they could take up unchallenged positions and defend them together, but if on the contrary they continue to make difficulties for one another, I am quite certain that the alliance would crumble, with the consequences that I have indicated.
Now that was the secretary general of NATO speaking, a man who is not given to pessimism. It was only a year ago that a report dealing with this very subject, the strengthening of consultation and co-operation within NATO in the non-military field, was made to the NATO council by a committee of three. In making that report we were not working under the influence of a shock such as we are doing today. A year ago, when that report was discussed, everybody agreed with it and, so far as I know -and I admit perhaps I do not know all about it-the report was then pigeonholed and little or nothing has been done to implement the recommendations.
That report, for instance, recommended among other things an exchange of information on scientific and technical matters. Indeed, it recommended the calling together of a scientific and technical NATO conference. That proposal, when it was made, did not attract very much attention but I am glad to note it is being taken up now by those who are in a position to put it into effect. And when we discussed this question of consultation about a year ago, everybody
External Affairs
was in favour of it in principle, but at the same time the more powerful members of NATO soon let it be known, as indeed they are beginning to let it be known now as the day for this summit meeting comes closer, that consultation is a wonderful thing in NATO but that it must not be carried out in such a way as to interfere inappropriately with the prior requirement of consultation within a government, and that it must not be allowed to interfere with the requirement for quick national action. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is far less danger of that happening than there is that these reasons will be used to prevent consultation being carried out in NATO beforehand, not after events had taken place.
We have had a very good example how not to proceed in this regard in the recent case of arms shipments to Tunisia. I know how difficult and complicated this problem can be and I know it impinges on a great many areas of policy, but surely it could have been discussed confidentially beforehand. The NATO council might have had a part to play before the disagreement between the three powers concerned became public. Perhaps if the question had been discussed inside the council this type of public disagreement which has come, to say the least at a very unfortunate time, might have been avoided.
NATO, then, remains the foundation of our policy for collective security. But behind NATO and more important even than NATO is the necessity for the negotiation of problems which divide the two worlds, as and when opportunity affords or may be created for that purpose. Therefore I should like to end on this note: while we must, as the minister said, remain strong in our defence, we must also remain strong and imaginative in our diplomacy, and we must work together, in NATO and elsewhere, not only to be strong but so that we can solve the problems which lie behind the division of the world, whose solution, if one can be found, would perhaps make it unnecessary for us to be so strong in a military sense that we in this country today have to divert about 40 per cent of our revenue to defence.
Mr. M. J. Cold well (Roseiown-Biggar): Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with other hon. members who have spoken in expressing the concern we all feel about the condition of the President of the United States. We know this creates a great problem for the American people because, unlike our own constitution, there is no settled way of dealing with business when the president is incapacitated.

External Affairs
Should a president die, there is, of course, a vice-president to act in his place, but I understand that incapacity is not provided for, and therefore I wish to join with others in expressing our sincere concern about the position of the United States.
I should like also to congratulate the minister on the assumption of his new duties in the government of Canada and in the House of Commons. I was hoping this afternoon that as a new minister in a new government he might have laid before the house a comprehensive statement of the policies of the government with regard to international affairs along more general lines than he did, but we will look forward to his doing this on a future occasion.
I must tell the bon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) that I did sympathize with him when he was "needling" the government a bit about its attitude a year ago at the time of the Suez crisis, and citing the minister for external affairs in support of the position taken by many of us in this house at that time. I do not think any of us were asleep when we read about the introduction of the minister when he arrived at Ottawa by air and was asked a question about Suez, to which he was proceeding to reply when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) intervened rather hurriedly to say that of course the minister's policy is consonant with that of the government of the day. Hon. members who had taken a different view from those who are now members of the government with regard to the Suez crisis were not slow to notice this incident.
I was glad to hear the minister say that Canada would continue to press for measures of disarmament and methods of reaching agreement in that field. The minister said that he and his colleagues would continue to press for disarmament, and I think it is right Canada should do so because it is obvious that the time has come when national armaments can no longer guarantee the safety and security of any country.
At this time we are witnessing a desperate and dangerous arms race between two of the great powers. I say only two great powers because there are only two great powers, Russia and the United States. They alone remain great in terms of power. These two nations, and the other nations which by domination or alliance are associated with them, have failed to reach any agreement on how we might eliminate the threat of war. All nations engaged in this arms race must eventually face drastic reductions in their standard of living and social services. The President of the United States has warned

his people to this effect while demanding still greater appropriations for scientific development of new and terrible weapons of war.
Canadians who were hopeful of reductions in defence expenditures are being warned that instead of money being diverted from defence we may find we may have to expend more in producing scientific instruments of war. That, of course, would prevent the diversion we should like to see, namely aid to underprivileged nations which I think is essential for the welfare and peace of the world.
I said that discussions among the great powers had failed to reach agreements. Their discussions have filled mankind with anxiety because since the war their diplomacy has degenerated into insults and threats. As the days pass their insults become more direct and their threats more violent. As their weapons become more terrible, mutual fear of ultimate destruction overshadows ordinary people everywhere.
The time has come when this parliament of Canada should take a new look at both our foreign policy and our defence commitments. Recent developments in international affairs have filled thoughtful Canadians not only with anxiety but with understandable apprehension; apprehension not so much of threats of war from any potential enemy, but indeed fear that the policies we, with others, have followed in recent years are fraught with danger to our own country and to the peace of the world.
The nations assembled at the San Francisco conference in 1945 and the delegates who comprised the delegations there together with the populations behind them believed that the charter of the United Nations provided an effective means of preventing another world war. Of course, it should be said that in spite of recurrent threats of war the United Nations has provided a forum where disputes could be aired and where means could be taken to stop minor acts of aggression which might lead to the outbreak of war among the great powers. May I say immediately that this justifies our support of the United Nations and indeed makes it essential that the United Nations shall be the cornerstone of our external policy.
The instrument for the prevention of aggression approved in the charter was never brought into being. The military staffs of the five principal powers have never established the international security or police force that was to function under the direction of the security council of the United Nations. Because of this, last year largely because of the proposals made by Canada, the United Nations

assembly created an emergency force to prevent the continuance of war in the Middle East and ordered the withdrawal of British, French and Israeli troops from Egypt. I want to say immediately that to their credit the order was obeyed promptly. While no similar action with regard to a force was taken to ensure the ending of the Russian aggression and the withdrawal of soviet troops from Hungary a similar order was ignored by the soviets. The action taken in the Middle East however showed that some advance had been made in the prevention of war by United Nations action.
We believe that Canada should give leadership in the cause of world peace and security by urging the United Nations assembly not only to maintain this security force but to urge the establishment of an expanded international police force designed to maintain international law and order. The great powers having failed to fulfil their function the assembly must assume the responsibility of maintaining law and order among the nations and if this requires amendment to the charter of the United Nations we should press for that amendment. Canada is not one of the so-called great powers but from time to time nations with populations many times our own have looked to us as a nation with no ulterior aim, without colonial ambitions and with no desire to dominate anyone else for the leadership which I think at times we have failed to give.
The common people of all nations without exception cry aloud for deliverance from ever pressing fears and for peace in our time and in the years beyond our time. The C.C.F. believes that this parliament at this time should seek a new approach in external affairs to match today's scientific developments to cope with the social and economic problems that confront the world. That is what I meant when I said at the outset that I had hoped with a new government and a new minister we might have had something more specific regarding our international policy than we received this afternoon.
The great powers having failed to find such an approach we believe that the lesser powers, if I may term them as such-the smaller and middle nations-should assume the responsibility of demanding the elimination of the dreadful threat of nuclear war and that we should associate ourselves with and give leadership to the smaller and middle nations in pressing this point home. We believe further that because of the confidence that has been shown in Canada from time to time by many nations this government
External Affairs
should take immediate steps to accept leadership and to play a more significant role in mankind's efforts to establish peace on a firm and lasting foundation.
Now, you ask how this can be done. In the first place-and here I agree with the former minister of external affairs-whenever a proposal is made by one or other of the great powers which seems even remotely to offer an opportunity for negotiation Canada should be ready to advise and to press for acceptance, should be prepared to assist in arrangements and, when possible and proper, should be prepared to join with other nations in such negotiations.
Very recently the Russian leader Khrushchev made a public pledge never to start a war. At the same time he proposed a new high level conference with representatives of capitalist states to ban war, to end the armament race, to achieve co-existence and the settlement of ideological differences through peaceful competition for the development of economics, culture and the better satisfaction of man's needs. Now, what was the immediate reaction? The immediate reaction from Washington was that this was another propaganda move and should be ignored. Canada accepted that opinion as did other nations which followed the United States lead. Yet, Mr. Speaker, was it not possible that the Soviet union, having recently demonstrated her strength through remarkable scientific advances, was making a new and this time perhaps a genuine attempt to bring about some easement in the cold war?
We know they have achieved leadership in the production of guided missiles and altogether likely in thermonuclear weapons. They are well aware that their country is surrounded by air bases manned so the newspapers tell us-not only the newspapers but the officials of the United States-with many hundreds of jet bombers equipped and ready with unbelievably destructive warheads. They know that an attack on North America, an attack on any part of Europe or elsewhere would be met by equally devastating attacks immediately on Russian industrial centres and populations.
I ask you if it is not remotely possible, therefore, that a new approach to peaceful negotiations might offer some success? Can we go along with the President of the United States who, in the first series of broadcasts discussing the earth satellite described the Soviet union-1 listened to him carefully- not as a rival in the scientific process but rather as "the enemy", as though his nation were at war. It is true that frightening statements have been made from time to time by soviet leaders but certainly frightening

External Affairs
statements have also been made by Mr. John Foster Dulles of the United States as well as by many other leaders in that country.
Where will all this lead us but eventually to war, a war in which there would be no victors, only victims; a war of mutual suicide? We do not believe that Canada should sit idly by and tolerate this drift toward disaster. This parliament and this government should demand that a new look be taken not only at our external policies but those of our Department of National Defence for defence and foreign policy are inextricably mixed up together.
We of the C.C.F. have supported measures that were in the previous stage of international affairs, we believe, designed to protect our people and indeed our friends from unprovoked attack. That seemed reasonable and proper but we know now that neither we in North America nor the people of Russia can find security in early warning radar lines, jet fighters or nuclear warheads on our guns. The only road to peace and security, it appears to us, surely now lies in promoting understanding and by negotiation arriving at mutual agreements to live and let live.
Our government should make it abundantly clear that we will support no policy or diplomacy of threats of studied insults, of abusive language in international affairs which may end in war. This we should make known both to the Soviet union and to the United States. Over the years I have been at the United Nations, I have heard the Soviet leaders indulge in insulting and abusive language. And, if I may mention him again, I think it should be made known particularly to Mr. John Foster Dulles whose meanderings around the world making provocative speeches everywhere fill intelligent people with alarm.
It is time then that Canada followed an external policy consonant with our international interests and our international reputation. We have not always done that, as witness our policy regarding China. Throughout history and indeed under international precedent nations recognize revolutionary governments when they obviously control a nation. Our own history is replete with examples. Nations had to recognize the British revolution of 1689, still celebrated in many parts of Canada on July 12 and the American revolution of 1776 when the forbears of many Canadians suffered grievously because they resisted it.
We remember the terror of the French revolution of 1789 and the bolshevik revolution of 1917; but the world finally recognized

the facts of the new revolutionary governments, that they ruled the nations involved. Why then should recognition be withheld from 600 million people in China proper when such a policy has driven them closer to the Soviet union, a nation which the President of the United States characterized earlier this month as the enemy? I believe it is because Washington would frown upon our doing so.
The Chinese, like the Russians, are on the march. Soon we may discover that the stories we have heard of their backwardness, their illiteracy, their ignorance, will be in the same category as stories told until very recently about the Russians. Perhaps, too, many of us were brought up in childhood, as I was brought up, to believe that the Chinese were heathen Chinese, people who were on a lower level than ourselves. We know that that is not true and never has been true.
So long were our people fed propaganda about Russia, to which I have alluded, that when journalists like I. Norman Smith, bankers like James Muir, businessmen like James Duncan, told us of the educational, industrial and scientific progress of Russia, what was said of them? They were characterized as dupes of communist propaganda.
Now, many of us, of course, knew that while there was widespread illiteracy, poverty and disease in China, there were also many thousands of highly cultured Chinese who were heirs of an ancient and historically peaceful culture which even revolution could not destroy.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: They were not in sympathy with the Chinese government.


Mr. McPhillips:: You don't believe in that.


Mr. Coldwell:: As a matter of fact, I am stating a historical fact. If the minister understands the history of Asia he will know that the Chinese throughout their history have had leaders who were highly cultured and who were peaceful in their intent.


William Joseph Browne: On a point of personal explanation, may I say to the hon. leader of the C.C.F. that I was not questioning the intelligence of a large group of independent people in China but I said they were not in sympathy with the Chinese government.


Major James William Coldwell: How do you know that?


William Joseph Browne: Well, I know.


Major James William Coldwell: As a matter of fact, many of us were not ignorant of the fact that the Chinese revolution against a corrupt regime was led in part at least by scholars in their

universities, joined by thousands of university students. In other words, in the leadership, among others, were Chinese intellectuals.
The European situation was commented upon as lately as Sunday by Mr. George F. Kennan, the former United States ambassador to Moscow, who is now lecturing at Oxford University. He was speaking over the British Broadcasting Corporation network. He urged in a radio address from London that the western nations make a re-appraisal of their policies, leading to the possible withdrawal of both eastern and western troops from Germany. I found considerable satisfaction myself in his remarks because, speaking in Montreal on December 14, 1956, I advocated a similar policy and I should like to quote what I had to say on that occasion. I was criticized for it. I said:
The west should be prepared to make imaginative and far-reaching proposals that will, by diplomatic means, achieve the freedom of the peoples of eastern Europe.
I was talking mainly about the Soviet aggression in Hungary. I said:
We cannot intervene militarily but we can make a bold attempt by other means to obtain the right of these states to determine their own destiny. Canada should take the lead in urging that the western nations offer to withdraw all foreign troops from Europe in return for the withdrawal of all Russian troops from eastern Europe and for the establishment of a guaranteed neutral zone between the U.S.S.R. and the western European powers. It would be best if the whole operation were conducted and guarantees given under a United Nations auspices. There may very well be some prospects of success in this suggestion if the west has the imagination to make it in a constructive way.
Consequently, I was very interested indeed in reading what the former United States ambassador to Moscow had to say, a man who cannot be charged with friendliness to the communist regime during the time that he occupied that important position in the Soviet union. One appeals to governments to act; but if governments will not act to achieve peace by negotiation and otherwise to remove the threats of war, does any other approach offer any hope for the easing of tensions and the imminent threat of war? I think there are other channels.
The C.C.F. believes at least that there are channels open to us to approach the soviet people. I was happy to view the hockey match last Friday evening between the team from Whitby, representing Canada, and the Russian team. The huge crowd in Maple Leaf Gardens at Toronto were obviously friendly to the visitors. The players showed every sign of good will and sportsmanship in victory and in defeat. Such events here and in Russia can exert an influence for good. I hope there will be more of them. It confirms our opinion that
External Affairs
the ordinary people of all countries are just people who want to live in peace with their neighbours.
I think another and much more important channel is the subject of editorial comment in the New York Herald Tribune of November 8, and has been, I may add, the subject of editorial comment in some of our own Canadian papers in more recent days.
The Herald Tribune, republican in sympathy, conservative in outlook, cannot be accused of communistic sympathies. The editors drew attention to a special bulletin sent out by the editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists of the United States, a most important and interesting periodical. Ever since it was first published I have subscribed to it.
This special bulletin contained a communication from 155 leading Soviet scientists, together with a formal resolution by the presidium of the academy of sciences of the U.S.S.R. The communication itself was signed by six of the soviet's outstanding scientists, including the world famous physicist, Peter Kapitsa, a graduate of Cambridge University whose laboratory was moved to Russia and established there with the assistance and cooperation of the English university's most eminent nuclear scientists some 25 years ago. Kapitsa is said to be the scientist responsible for the satellite. The resolution proposed a broad international conference of scientists to discuss the dangers to mankind of a thermonuclear war. I am going to read the letter, It is in these words:
Let not only atomic scientists of all countries but also representatives of other disciplines, biologists, medical scientists, philosophers of all schools, economists, historians, sociologists, educators, etc., express their weighty opinions in a broad international meeting of the most important representatives of science. In such a tense time, full of danger of a general destructive war, scientists cannot remain aside. Their duty is to add their voice to the requests for the cessation of atomic tests. The danger which hangs over mankind because of the possibility of using atomic energy for war purposes is common to all countries independent of their political and economic systems.
We the soviet scientists express our full readiness for common effort with scientists of any other country, to discuss any proposals directed towards the prevention of atomic war, the creation of secure peace, and tranquility for all mankind.
The editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists comments that while the letter repeats some communist propaganda demands, the writers recognize the necessity of avoiding atomic wars rather than merely that of abolishing atomic weapons, a very significant difference in approach. The editor urged scientists of the west to take up this offer.
The Herald Tribune then pointed out that this soviet offer grew from a conference on a

External Affairs
smaller scale held in Canada last summer at the summer home of Mr. Cyrus Eaton at Pugwash, Nova Scotia. On the same page of the newspaper Mr. Cyrus Eaton had an article warmly approving of the suggestion and naming Canada as one suitable location for the conference.
Of course I realize that this appeal, as the Prime Minister said when I drew it to his attention, was not on a governmental level, but I see no reason why our government should not encourage our scientists to invite such a conference to Canada and assist them in every way to make it a success. On the contrary, I see every reason why our government should do so.
Here surely is a new channel of approach by men and women whose activities are based on scientific knowledge which is international. A few years ago some people were prone to refer to scientists and philosophers as "eggheads". Today who will deny that the future of the world rests with such people rather than some irresponsible politicians-


An hon. Member:: You are one of them.


Major James William Coldwell: -some rather open-mouthed generals and admirals and some backbenchers who have made and are making a sorry mess of their opportunities and their responsibilities.
In 1945 some politicians in the United States made the mistake of believing that the mathematics at the root of scientific advances could be the secret of their country. Future historians may regard this erroneous opinion as one of the important roots of the distrust and misunderstandings that have plagued the world in the past decade. They refused to allow their knowledge to be shared with their allies, even some who had provided them with the very basis of the atomic discovery they determined to keep to themselves, and principally among these, of course, were their British and Canadian allies.
I might add that Mr. Eaton pointed out in the article to which I have referred that the men who produced the first atomic bomb were not all Americans. They were Italians, Danes, Poles and Germans as well, I may add, as British, French, Canadians and others. Of the proposed scientific conference suggested in the Herald Tribune Mr. Eaton had this to say:
It is certainly something that colleges and universities can back. Certainly anyone who is a capitalist ought to go for it because in a war all the material accumulations of the past would go. One hydrogen bomb would lay this great city (New York) in rubble.

Surely capitalists, socialists and, yes, communists, share this common dread and should seek a common way out of the danger that overhangs the world.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at eight o'clock.
Major James William Coldwell: Mr. Speaker, there is
another aspect of this problem which deserves more consideration by this house than it has received in the past. In the end, war or no war, annihilation or not for many millions, the most potent urge among mankind will remain "hunger" and hunger today is widespread across the world.
As a vital part of our external policy, the government should be supporting more completely and more generously every intelligent proposal for economic and technical aid. We should not gear our support to that of any nation, as we have been doing. Canada has said that because certain nations pay certain fractions of funds for technical aid, we are prepared to contribute only what we consider to be the proportionate fraction too. The United Nations assembly is again debating the special United Nations fund for economic development which has been before the assembly for several years and which is designed to provide capital grants and loans to the underdeveloped countries of Asia and Africa, under the auspices of the United Nations. Canada has joined the United States and the United Kingdom in opposing this project both before the economic and social council and the appropriate committee of the United Nations. This fund is designed to plan capital assistance with political and profit considerations giving way to human need.
May I say that this afternoon I was disappointed that the minister did not accept the suggestion made by my friend the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Macdonald) and give a more hopeful answer to his question.
In the vote about to be taken at the assembly Canada should assert its moral leadership among the nations that want to support this fund in spite of the opposition of the United States delegation. Apart from this, we should be prepared to make further and large appropriations for the Colombo plan. The increase in the Colombo plan proposed by the government at this session is paltry in comparison with the needs of southeast Asia, in particular India, and our

own gross national production, as are the other contributions mentioned this afternoon by the minister in his address to the house. We should divert at least one-quarter of the amount this parliament is providing in our defence appropriations to SUNFED, technical aid, the Colombo plan and other international humanitarian efforts. Other nations should do the same so that disease and hunger could be banished from the world in a relatively short time. That would do more to remove the threats of world-wide dictatorships of the communist or fascist varieties than all the stockpiles of atomic warheads and guided missiles the western nations could conceivably acquire.
When we come to a discussion of the government's defence proposals we shall have more to say about this aspect of our defence expenditures. Suffice it now to say that we look forward to and must work for the day when Canada can abandon armaments entirely for offence as well as defence all across the world.
To sum up, then, we state categorically that we are not satisfied with our external affairs policies. They do not meet the needs of the country in this period of danger from new and terrible weapons that modern war would loose upon mankind. We therefore take this opportunity of urging this house and this government to adopt a new approach to the problem that besets us. There must be an end to a diplomacy based on threats and insults. Canada, which has been comparatively free from this type of diplomacy, should denounce it whenever it is indulged in and whoever indulges in it.
Our approach to international problems must be devised to meet today's scientific developments and to cope with the social and economic problems of the nations and the peoples of the world, regardless of race, creed, colour or ideology. We should thus give every encouragement and support to plans and financial contributions for the relief of hunger and disease among the less privileged peoples of the world as well as, indeed, within our own borders. Hence, because the United Nations does offer and afford opportunities to exercise such leadership, we must continue to support and to enhance the prestige of the United Nations.
We believe that Russia and the United States both must know that either they will meet to achieve a settlement of political differences between them or, sooner or later, mutual suicide will result. Canada's role now should be to give a definite and imaginative lead, to the middle and smaller nations at least, to demand that negotiations between the two great powers and their allies should be undertaken on every possible occasion.
External Affairs
Today, because of the anxieties we all feel, there is at least a possibility that such leadership offered by Canada might meet with a large measure of success since the peoples of all nations share our fear that a continuance of the present nuclear arms race can have no other end than universal destruction for us all. We want the world to heed the message which in less than a month will ring out once more across the world as it has for centuries in the past among the Christian nations of the world: "Peace on earth, good will to men".


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate I should first of all like to associate the members of this group with the expressions of regret and sympathy we all felt when we heard that the President of the United States had been stricken. It is our sincere hope and prayer that he may speedily be restored to his usual health.
I should also like to extend congratulations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) as he takes over the portfolio of this extremely important department. We welcome the opportunity that is presented at this time to discuss the world picture in general and Canada's position within that picture in particular. I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that the time for this debate is so limited. I should like to remind the house that more time was spent yesterday in debating the advisability of setting up a committee to consider the installation of a translation system than has been allowed today for the debating of our position in international affairs. I am not in any way minimizing the importance of the debate of yesterday. However, in view of the tremendous factors involved in the debate today, I feel that much longer than one day should have been set aside for this important discussion.
I should like to thank the secretary of state for his report this afternoon, for it was a report dealing with the activities of the Canadian delegation at the United Nations and also the contribution Canada is making in respect of a number of other phases of our international policy and program.
I should like also to say that we would have welcomed a direct statement of policy on the part of the minister and the government at this time in order to help us get a grasp and an understanding of the direction in which this government proposes to lead Canada in relation to our external affairs. Of course, I think it has been fairly definitely stated that there would be no fundamental change in policy. We therefore can only assume that the direction that was followed

External Affairs
by the previous government will to a large extent be followed by the present government.
Reference was made today to the NATO organization. Right at the outset-and I do not propose to spend very much time tonight on these individual organizations-I should like to say that we are in complete agreement with the objective of the NATO organization. In view of the inability of the United Nations to cope with the problem and in order to place us in a position where we can defend ourselves and maintain our own security, we feel it was necessary to set up a separate organization such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and today, as never before, we are impressed with the necessity of maintaining this organization and perhaps strengthening it but certainly in no wise minimizing its importance.
When I state our support of this organization I should like to say as well that we believe that a clear statement should be made, and reiterated time and time again, that NATO is a defensive organization, and a defensive organization only, with no plans for aggression, with no designs upon other nations, and that it is there solely as an instrument to effect and maintain our security.
Reference has been made to the Colombo plan and of course we in this group have always given our wholehearted support to the principle underlying the Colombo plan and the expanding program for technical assistance of the United Nations. We have always felt, as we still feel, that the contributions made by Canada to these organizations are an investment; they are not a handout or just a contribution given to ease our conscience in view of world need, but an investment whereby we contribute to the betterment of the world, enabling the underprivileged to assist themselves, to raise their standards of living and to place themselves on a much higher plane than that on which they are existing at the present time from economic and social points of view.
Now since we last discussed foreign affairs events have moved with incredible speed and we now find ourselves being directed away from our role as earthbound peoples into the realm of space and inter-planetary travel, with all the exhilarating or catastrophic possibilities which these ventures may produce. At least to the ordinary citizen of Canada, the achievement of soviet scientific knowledge and skill has caused an impact that will not soon be forgotten. We had imagined that the United States and Britain were so far advanced in these scientific and engineering fields that no other nation could possibly eclipse them, but what we have heard and

read during these past few weeks has disillusioned us and we are asking "Now what?"
I am sure we all remember the forebodings and the fears consequent upon the dropping of the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We were on that occasion ushered very unceremoniously into a new age but it was an age of fear besides being an age of wonder. Following that circumstance we heard the dire predictions that the end of the world was really in view and may I remind hon. members that these predictions were not made by some so-called wild-eyed preachers of doom but by scientists, legislators and statesmen the free world over. Perhaps it could be that we were at that time arriving at the point referred to in the scriptures when men's hearts were failing for fear of those things which were coming to pass upon the earth. Now, upon the minds of men, already taut with the remembrance of those things to which I have referred, there comes the terrific impact and realization of new and even greater inventions, the fearsome or the beneficial results of which are still clouded in the mists of uncertainty.
Now what is the significance of this great new advance in modern science? What does it mean to us that this invention is first of all in the hands of a power constituting possibly the greatest and only threat to our free way of life? These are important questions. However, we find that fear in many instances in the past has provided an incentive for action in other fields of endeavour and so the fear of this new advance in science by the soviet union has had the effect of shaking those in the western world out of their complacency.
I ask this question: Why did this thing come as such a surprise to us? How was it possible that these achievements could be reached without any intimation being gained or received by the western world that such things were in the offing? Was it because we had been lulled into a false sense of security; was it because we had somehow settled back and under perhaps the relaxation of certain tensions had forgotten the tremendous possibilities that existed in other parts of the world? Why was it that this thing had to come with such an element of surprise?
Perhaps the former government could give some answer to that question, but granted that this thing which has been invented could be of inestimable value from a purely scientific point of view-and we are reminded that the soviet union has promised to share the data and information obtained with the rest of the world-I do not think we can get away from the conviction that its value

from the military standpoint is far beyond the present conception of most individuals and, in the hands of a great and unfriendly power, could have disastrous consequences for the free world.
Without question it was the realization of this fact that threw American military and scientific brains into an all-out effort, not only to close the gap, but to again take the lead in this all-important field. President Eisenhower ordered full speed ahead, and then, in consultation with the leaders of our other friendly powers has urged the consolidation of the free nations of the world into a unified force to defeat the worldwide designs of the communist leaders.
Now it is against this backdrop that we pause to take our bearings today and to discover, if we can, just where we as a nation fit into the international picture; to try and discover, if we can, whether or not our foreign policy is designed to accomplish the greatest good for ourselves and for other parts of the world. That is why we would have welcomed today a more direct statement of policy on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. We ask the question: What is involved in the marshalling of the united forces of the free world into a unit or instrument capable of defeating the aggressive designs of the soviet? First of all I suppose it comes to our minds that this involves the pooling of our military power and potential.
For some years now we have been engaged in a feverish race for military superiority. Canada's contribution to this end has cost us in the neighbourhood of $2 billion per year and although I am sure Canadians right across the country are prepared to make every sacrifice necessary to preserve our way of life and freedom, yet the question is becoming increasingly persistent: Just where are we going? What is to be the final outcome of all our feverish activities? I do not have to take the time tonight to refer to the tremendous military build-up of the past few years the arms race where each nation was trying to outdo the other, not only in manpower but in fighting power in armaments of all descriptions. Think of the cost to the nations. We see that with all our expenditure and with all our efforts and all the application of our skills and powers, when we reach a certain plateau we still have further expenditures before us and greater sacrifices than ever before. So the question is: where does it end?
They tell us that before one aircraft is in production it is obsolescent and they are already working on something new. There
External Affairs
was a tremendous expenditure for something, but we did not know whether or not it was going to be brought into use. And yet because we could not wait for the ultimate in weapons I suppose we had to fill in the gap with these other things. The struggle, it seems to me, still goes on.
I remember well back in 1954 when it was my privilege to attend the United Nations session as an observer, debates were then going on relative to disarmament, and it seems to me I spent most of my time sitting in that committee listening to speech after speech, debate after debate, trying to find some common ground, some common meeting place of opinion. But it seemed to end in frustration. And so, year after year, it goes on, and it does not seem that we are getting any closer to the answer to the problem; it does not seem as if we are reaching a solution.
And now, as outlined today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we find that seemingly the matter has reached a stalemate, that the Soviet union refuses to participate any further in the deliberations on disarmament. However, we must continue to press on; we must continue to seek a solution; we must endeavour to find an answer to the riddle which has proved so perplexing down through the years.
But, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the futility of armaments as an effective system for the building of the kind of world we envisage for ourselves and for succeeding generations. What kind of world do we want? If we want a world where men can live without fear, if we want a world free from want, if we want a world where an opportunity is given for the full development of human prosperity, then all our military endeavours, necessary though they may be now, will not, I suggest, hasten the coming of the kind of world that we envisaged. There must, surely, be a stopping place somewhere in the arms race and military build up, a point where the futility of this mad struggle will dawn upon us and when, like the prodigal son, we will return to sanity.
Adequate defence is wise, but a constant struggle for greater and more potent weapons of destruction is nothing short of imbecility.
I think the suggestion of pooling our resources would involve the pooling of our scientific knowledge and skills. I think significant progress has been made in those things which contribute to human happiness, but it is a sad commentary on human intelligence that the greatest progress which has been made has been in the field of destructive capabilities. Who can estimate

External Affairs
the sum total of good which could accrue to the human race were all the skills and knowledge of men brought to bear upon constructive living, and if the results of scientific progress were made available to all people? Today, however, it appears that the great goal is to eclipse others in the technical field so that through these means our military capability will be increased. We now have the power to blast the nations into oblivion.
I ask the question: what more are we striving for? What is the object of scientific research and technological development? Is it to open the way for mankind into a fuller and more creatively worth-while life? If so, that is well and good. Is it to develop our capacity to destroy civilization with one bomb instead of two? If that is the case, it is devilish.
No doubt, this suggestion involves, also, to a certain degree at least, the pooling of economic resources. We have already referred to the Colombo plan and to the United Nations program for technical assistance, and I believe that it is the purpose of the nations which are gathered together in peaceful alliances not only to maintain themselves but to extend a helping hand to those who are in a less fortunate position than themselves. As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, we in this group have given full support to these programs and have urged that our contributions in this field should be extended. We still say that.
But let us ask a question here, as well. What is the motive behind the contributions which are being made to the under-developed countries? Is it to try and place them in a position of indebtedness to us, so that we, in turn, may expect their support in further programs that we may have? If our motives are unworthy they will soon become very obvious, and instead of buying support and buying friendliness they will bring instead antagonism and bitterness. If it is to feed the hungry, if it is to discharge our responsibility to those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and if we give gladly and willingly, without any hope or expectation-


An hon. Member:: How much did you give?


Alexander Bell Patterson: What was that asinine remark down there? Now, that is something. That is really something profound. We are dealing here with one of the greatest programs that we have for the betterment of mankind and then someone down in that end of the house raises that foolish question. Perhaps I should ask him what he gave.
Mr. Speaker, if it is to assist those who are in need, then I say: let us do our utmost,

increase our contributions and do everything we can to discharge our responsibility in this particular field.
I believe also that this co-operation and this pooling of our resources must include the pooling of our moral and spiritual resources also. There are certain features in soviet policy which we deeply deplore and one of them is the disparity between their preaching and their practice. But let us not imagine that they alone are guilty of this.
Down through the past we have been subjected to a tremendous peace offensive. In the past, as I have stated, we have been engaging in disarmament conferences and discussions. There has been the proclamation of the great principle of freedom for all men and the right of self-determination and sovereignty for all nations. Let us just think of this for a moment. I say we have been subjected to a great peace barrage and I suppose our views differ as to the sincerity of that peace offensive and what the purpose behind it all was. I believe it goes without saying that we are all in favour of peace but the only trouble is to find some way of making that dream a reality. That is the difficulty.
Much has been said and written about the self-determination of peoples and may I say that some of those who have been the loudest in proclaiming this doctrine have been the leaders of the Soviet union. However, while the so-called colonial powers of the west have been leading colonial peoples on toward the goal of nationhood and then standing by with moral and other support as those nations gained strength and confidence, the Soviet union stands out not only as the greatest colonial power but as the most ruthless of any who have ever held control over the minds and bodies of men, those peoples whom they profess to protect. As a matter of fact, some of the nations granted sovereignty by so-called western colonial powers are now struggling for their very existence against attempted communist domination.
Communism promises an era of peace and progress based upon the right of self-determination and mutual respect but institutes rather an iron rule that, while proclaiming the gospel of sovereignty and self-determination, proceeds to stifle the deepest aspirations of peoples and nations to live in freedom and dignity. Communism promises freedom from exploitation and a guarantee of civil rights but imposes a system which denies man the very freedoms which it professes to guarantee. We have many illustrations of this: the Ukraine, the Baltic states and the other satellite countries.

When men and nations reached the point of desperation and rose up ready and willing to sacrifice life and everything to try and regain their freedoms we had the illustration of the brutal suppression of the Hungarian people in their struggle for freedom and liberty.
Following the great conference of the communist nations we had the issue of this broad declaration: We are extending our hands to all people of good will. Jointly we will throw off the burden of armament which suppresses the people. We will free the world from the danger of war, death and destruction. Before us is a bright and happy future for mankind which is advancing toward progress. Hon. members will perhaps recognize these as the words of Mr. Khrushchev.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in order to demonstrate their sincerity there are two things which the Soviet union should do. The first is to settle down to a determined effort within the framework of the disarmament commission to work out a plan and program that would accomplish the very things they have been speaking about. I would also say that in order to prove their sincerity they should grant an opportunity to the nations under their control for a full and free expression of their wishes and desires relative to the system of government under which they choose to live. However, the leaders of the Soviet union are not the only ones who are guilty of hypocrisy for I believe that in assessing the world situation and striving for a solution we have to a large degree forgotten the application of the moral concept to our own activities.
There are two opposing forces in the world. On one hand we have a system of tyranny and oppression diametrically opposed to the way of life to which we pay lip service but unfortunately so often fail to practise, a totalitarian system in which the state is god and individuals are but pawns, a system characterized by suppression, fear and liquidation. On the other hand we have a system which extolls the glories of private enterprise and which recognizes the dignity of man and the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In the past our whole attention has been devoted to an attempt to counter some move already made by communism in its bid for power and expansion, and in practically every case we have failed. What has happened is that in our hatred of communism we have begun to hate the communists. In our endeavour to contain communism we have become tragically negative in our approach to world problems. In our defence of the free way of life we have been almost ready
External Affairs
to sacrifice our freedoms. If we in our defence of freedom yield to a dictatorial regime nationally or internationally we shall become the victims of the very processes that we despise. We must not only require others to recognize and live according to the high principles of justice, honesty and humanity but we must scrupulously observe them ourselves, being sincere, fair and aboveboard in all our dealings with other nations. We must, I suggest, cleanse ourselves from uncharitable attitudes and ulterior motives and dedicate ourselves to the pursuit of those high principles in international affairs with courage, faith and determination. We must revitalize our democracy so that by a positive demonstration of the virtues of our system we will confound those who predict the deterioration and eventual collapse of the private enterprise economy. This will do much to strengthen the morale of our people and convince others how worth while is the democratic way of life.
I would now like to refer to what I understand has been the policy for many years in this house. Based on the idea that even though the full and free expression of party views could contribute greatly to the efficiency of internal parliamentary democracy, it was considered most desirable in so far as it was possible that our foreign policy should represent the united thought and attitude of parliament as a whole. Therefore, as nearly as possible, Canada followed a non-partisan policy in the field of foreign affairs.
I believe this desirable end may be secured or effected in different ways. Government could abdicate its responsibility and leave the formulation of policy to the non-partisan civil servants and career diplomats and both government and opposition view this as a good way out. That, of course, would be unthinkable. On the other hand, the opposition could abdicate its responsibility and for the sake of unanimity become "yes" men to government-sponsored policy. In closing my remarks I would like to propose another approach to this important question, namely the setting up of an all-party consultative committee with which the Secretary of State for External Affairs could confer with a view to acquainting himself with the views and proposals of the people's representatives.
In this way the elected representatives of the people could be kept informed of conditions and could have a part in recommending policy. We recognize, of course, that the minister and the government would of necessity have the final responsibility but, on the other hand, the opposition would retain their

External Affairs
right of criticism. Parliament also would exercise final control and the supremacy of parliament would be maintained in foreign affairs.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that such a committee should be composed of the leaders of the respective parties, with possibly the addition of one or more members from each of the groups. In this way I believe it would be possible for the setting forth of a truly Canadian policy with respect to foreign affairs.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Parliamentary Assistant to the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to extend to you my most sincere congratulations on your election to your very high office. It may come a little late but I have not had the opportunity of doing so before during this session.
It may appear, Mr. Speaker, from the latest dispatches, that the condition of President Eisenhower is perhaps not as grave as the information we received this afternoon led us to believe, and I would like to say on behalf of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) and not only members on this side of the house but I am sure all members that we pray this is the case, that his condition is not so grave, and that this great leader of the free world will be restored to his accustomed vigour.
This evening, Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate on the subject of external affairs I propose to deal exclusively with the subject of disarmament which is a matter of the greatest interest and importance not only to the people of Canada but to people all over the world. I would like to take this opportunity of dealing with this subject because I have, in the last eight weeks, had the honour and the opportunity of serving as vicechairman of our delegation to the United Nations and of following the whole subject at first hand.
The disarmament negotiations of the subcommittee, which was held last summer in London, came to an abrupt end at the beginning of September after the soviet representative, Mr. Zorin, had rejected the proposals for partial measures of disarmament submitted by the four western powers in a working paper on August 29. This abrupt termination of the subcommittee's work was clearly a matter of great concern to many countries when the general assembly of the United Nations opened last September 17. The opening statements of all the great powers in the assembly reflected this concern. Speaking for Canada on September 23, the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) expressed the hope that the current session of the United Nations assembly might be known in future years as a disarmament assembly.

These words were quoted with warmth by a number of successive speakers and I think the general tenor of the debate opened with fairly high hopes.
In general the debate concentrated upon the resolution of October 11, introduced by 24 of the major powers. Much of this resolution was based on the western proposals in the subcommittee on August 29. The subcommittee, of course, was held in London.
This afternoon the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mclvor) made a request of the Secretary of State for External Affairs asking that he deal with those proposals in detail and this evening I think I might outline the proposals of the 24-power resolution. They are condensed, of course, Mr. Speaker, but I think they reach the heart of the matter. This resolution was based upon six points which are as follows:
One. The immediate suspension of nuclear testing in conjunction with an adequate control system to ensure that this was carried out.
Two. The so-called "cut-off" or the cessation of the production of fissionable materials for weapons purposes.
Three. The reduction of stocks of nuclear weapons.
Four. The controlled and graduated reduction of armed forces and armaments; that is, conventional armaments, a field in which agreement had almost been reached.
Five. The progressive establishment of a ground and aerial system to guard against surprise attack.
Six. The study of an inspection system to ensure that objects would be sent into outer space only for peaceful and scientific purposes.
These six points presented a more complex resolution than any of those put forward by the U.S.S.K.; for they represented a series of concrete proposals on which the western powers and their allies in NATO had negotiated for months to ensure agreement. As a member of the subcommittee, Canada participated in the drafting of this resolution and co-sponsored it.
In contrast, the soviet resolutions were simple, propagandistic in their appeal and in their essence completely uncontrollable. Briefly, the Soviet union presented two proposals. The first was for a five-year ban on the use of nuclear weapons. This clearly meant nothing more than an uncontrollable promise which would be valid until the day it was broken. This resolution, I might say, received only 11 votes in favour.
The second soviet proposal called for the immediate cessation of testing, without regard

to any other measures on disarmament. It became quite evident that many nations were attracted by a proposal of this kind. India had submitted a very similar resolution and Japan presented a compromise resolution which linked the objective of a temporary suspension of nuclear testing to negotiations for an adequate supervision and inspection system to verify this. The Indian proposal received a vote of 22 for, 38 against and 20 abstentions. The Japanese proposal was opposed by the soviet bloc as well as by the west and was defeated by a vote of 18 for, 32 against and 31 abstentions. Canada voted against all these proposals because it felt, as did many other countries, that the question of nuclear test suspension can only be settled as a part of a more comprehensive disarmament agreement which also does something to solve the more fundamental matter of the arms race in nuclear weapons.
Perhaps because of the reservations which many countries had on matters such as nuclear test suspension, the disarmament debate showed little enthusiasm at the beginning. For some time there was a shortage of countries willing to speak; and while it was apparent that the 24-power resolution would receive an adequate majority many of the uncommitted nations questioned the value of requesting support by the assembly for what was essentially the position of one side to the cold war alone.
Many of our allies were slow to make public their support, as if they were waiting for some further clarification of the western position. For these reasons the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he delivered the Canadian statement in the committee on October 23 last, emphasized repeatedly that Canada, while it had sponsored the 24-power draft resolution and urged its adoption, remained open-minded. I should like to make a brief quotation from the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the political committee of the United Nations which was at that time discussing disarmament:
Canada is sensitive to every possibility of improving it. Let us not be inflexible in this regard. We of Canada certainly do not say that the particular proposals with which we are now associated are the only means by which at least some progress can be made toward disarmament. Canada has co-sponsored plans for partial disarmament, but I repeat that we do not necessarily regard them as the last word.
Canada's position of flexibility was enthusiastically welcomed by the representatives of many countries, including Norway, Mexico, Pakistan, Israel and Nepal. It was particularly noteworthy that in the closing remarks of the representative of the United States, Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, he said that 96698-98
External Affairs
the United States associated itself at some length with the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Ambassador Lodge added that the United States also desired openmindedness and flexibility and they too were not suggesting that our proposals, the 24-power resolution, were the last word. It is perhaps not too much to say that this position of flexibility contributed to the large vote by which the 24-power resolution was passed. The resolution, incidentally, received 57 votes in favour, 9 votes against, being merely the soviet bloc, and 15 abstentions. This vote was later sustained when the resolution came from the political committee to the general assembly.
It would have been a very satisfactory result for the west and for Canada except for the dramatic soviet announcement just before the vote was taken that they would not return to participate in the work of either the disarmament commission or its subcommittee. Shortly before Russia had introduced a resolution calling for the establishment of a permanent disarmament commission consisting of all 82 members of the United Nations which would discuss disarmament continuously and without any secrecy whatsoever. It is hard to believe that the U.S.S.R. really wants such a commission or that this move was anything but a propaganda move. Only a few days earlier the soviets had argued that it would be wrong for the committee to vote for a disarmament agreement which should properly be the result of unanimous agreement among merely the great powers. Now the soviets appeared to be calling for a commission where just such votes would be taken all the time. One can only conclude that the soviets were resorting to their normal tactics of bargaining at an oriental bazaar; by demanding the impossible they were hoping to obtain a little more than they otherwise would.
The first reaction of Canada's allies was to discount the soviet intention to boycott the commission as an idle threat of no importance. This was not the Canadian reaction for we had always considered the composition of the disarmament commission and its subcommittee to be in question. One month earlier our Prime Minister, speaking of the disarmament subcommittee, had said in the assembly:
We consider that a salutary effect might be achieved by securing the participation of other powers; they may be capable of rendering assistance in the processes of seeking an agreement that we have not been able to achieve. But let me say this: Geography alone should not be the basis for choosing additional members, for all members are not equally equipped to contribute towards the agreement for which we all devotedly hope.

External Affairs
Some of our allies had said in the course of the debate that there should be no expansion either of the commission or its subcommittee, but we had been careful in our concluding remarks on November 4 last to keep our position open on this matter. Thus when the soviet made it clear that they would boycott the existing commission, we made strong representations to our allies that the question of commission expansion should be reconsidered. It was not-perhaps I should stress this point-a question of caving in to the Russians; it was not a question of doing something merely to bring them back to the disarmament negotiations. On these matters I think nearly everyone would agree that the Soviet union is inscrutable and, as events proved, they are quite capable of appearing to work for a compromise and then demanding something more, something quite unacceptable, when a compromise is offered them.
However, we felt that many countries in the United Nations were deeply concerned about the future of disarmament proceedings and that intransigence over a relatively small matter, the question of commission expansion, would appear in retrospect a foolish intransigence, particularly if it gave the U.S.S.R. a good excuse not to negotiate in the future at all. At this time many of our allies, unlike Canada, were under firm instructions to oppose expansion of the disarmament commission. Therefore, on November 6 we made only a guarded statement in the political committee just before the votes were taken. At that time I made certain remarks and I should like to quote what I said. I do so only because I think the remarks are pertinent to the remarks I am making at the moment. I said:
We do not believe that the size or composition of the disarmament commission and the subcommittee has been a major obstacle in the way of agreement. But, by the same token, we do not believe that a matter of some alteration in the United Nations disarmament bodies need inevitably be allowed to stand in the way of at least the opportunity for further negotiation. .	.	. Our
fundamental approach to a possible change in disarmament bodies was defined by Prime Minister Diefenbaker in his statement in the general debate on September 23. He made it clear at that time that we were certainly not opposed in principle to associating other countries with these disarmament talks if there was any chance that this would improve the prospects of success. If, however, the very possibility of continuing the negotiations at all is now jeopardized, then the willingness to accept some reasonable adjustment is all the more essential.
As we expected, this statement was warmly welcomed by many countries, including some of our NATO allies. Very shortly thereafter our allies on the subcommittee indicated to

us that they would not now be opposed to reasonable expansion of the disarmament commission.
The disarmament commission, I may say, is of course composed of the eleven members of the security council. In addition, Canada has the unique honour of being a permanent member of the commission, as well as of its subcommittee, whether or not she is a member of the security council. The western position in the security council has always been quite secure, as may be illustrated by the fact that nine of the eleven powers composing the newly elected security council voted for the western disarmament resolution at this assembly.
It was therefore agreed that some neutral or uncommitted countries, notably India, and some satellites such as Czechoslovakia, could be seated in the commission without any danger to the west. After this we were in constant consultation with the representatives of our three allies on the subcommittee. Ambassador Lodge for the United States, Commander Noble for the United Kingdom and Mr. Jules Moch for France.
At first it was agreed that an addition of five new members might be reasonable. Then immediately rumours of our negotiations began to spread, as they do down there, and many countries indicated that if there were to be any commission expansion then their own region, or more particularly their own country in some cases, should not be excluded. Thus, our subcommittee allies themselves asked that not five but ten countries should be added. These ten were Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Burma, Czechoslovakia, India, Italy, Tunisia and Yugoslavia.
It was agreed that if such a resolution for commission expansion were to be effective it should unite rather than divide the assembly, or at least that part of it outside the soviet bloc. Therefore, along with our allies we had been in constant consultation with India and with other leaders of the uncommitted nations. We had also had some contact, I may add, with the soviet delegation who had made it clear that they would not commit themselves to any resolution in advance. At times we seemed on the point of finding a list of countries which would be acceptable to all the powers concerned. However, after some days of negotiation it became more and more clear to the Canadian delegation that, regardless of our own views, it would be very hard to get prior agreement between all of our subcommittee allies on the one hand and the major uncommitted countries on the other. Therefore, in order to get the ship launched, so to speak, together with Japan we introduced a resolution calling upon the

assembly "to enlarge the disarmament commission by the addition of ten member states which, for the first year, from 1 January, 1958, to 1 January, 1959, shall be"-and then followed the ten countries I have previously mentioned. Our tactic on this occasion was, in the words of an eminent statesman of the past, to wait and see the reaction of the assembly to this resolution.
We were not surprised to learn that there was widespread feeling, even among some of our NATO allies, that while our resolution was a good thing it was perhaps not quite good enough, and that a more equitable and satisfactory list of countries could still be found. In short, Mr. Speaker, we continued to negotiate with the same intensity after our resolution was introduced as we had before. Twice the discussion of our resolution was postponed and once the assembly was adjourned for this purpose.
At length it became clear that India, Sweden and Yugoslavia would be satisfied with an amendment to our resolution which we ourselves had been considering, namely the addition of four more countries, Egypt, Mexico, Norway and Poland. When it was clear that this amendment could be accepted by all of our subcommittee allies we tabled a revised version of our resolution, one which was in our view very much more satisfactory and which would add all of these 14 countries and thus give the disarmament commission a membership of 25 countries. We were particularly pleased to obtain for our resolution the co-sponsorship of all the middle powers most concerned, namely Canada, India, Japan, Sweden and Yugoslavia. Later Paraguay joined the sponsors as a representative of Latin American countries.
At this point there was some reasonable optimism that in view of the wide sponsorship and support for our resolution, the U.S.S.R. would not oppose it and would indicate its return to the commission. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, this was the information that we and most of the other member nations of the assembly had received. However, such was not to be the case. At the last minute the soviet position hardened again and our resolution was honoured with a public rejection by the soviet representative to the United Nations. At the last minute the soviet tabled, in the name of Albania, an amendment calling for the addition of seven more countries. These countries were Austria, Bulgaria, Ceylon, Finland, Indonesia, Romania and Sudan, not one of which could truly be considered pro-western in its disarmament attitudes. The U.S.S.R. supported 96698-98J
External Affairs
this resolution in all seriousness as an effective "compromise" to meet the western position "half-way". They made a firm statement that only if this unacceptable amendment were accepted would they return to the disarmament commission, a statement which led most countries to conclude that the U.S.S.R. simply did not wish to turn to the commission at all.
The voting on our resolution and on the soviet proposal showed that the Soviet union had allowed itself to become completely isolated on this matter. Many "neutral" countries were offended by this abrupt soviet rejection of a serious negotiated compromise on which much labour had been expended. Yugoslavia in particular expressed its regret that our resolution had not been generally accepted. Because of this disappointment Yugoslavia declined to vote on the resolution in any way. After the Albanian amendment had been defeated by a vote of 19 for and 38 against, with 19 abstentions, our resolution was then passed by the impressive majority of 60 for to 9 against, with 11 abstentions. Only the hard core of the soviet bloc voted against our resolution. I might say, Mr. Speaker, that our resolution was supported by most of the Asian countries and almost the entire Arab group, including Egypt, Jordan and Syria. The soviet proposal for a permanent 82 member commission received only the 9 votes of its own bloc.
If the U.S.S.R. persists in its refusal to negotiate, one may well ask what Canada's efforts in this matter have achieved. I think that question was probably in the mind of the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) when he made his remarks this afternoon. We have at the very least shown a constructive willingness to make reasonable concessions in order to continue serious talks on this vitally urgent question. No one can say that western stubborness on the mere machinery of United Nations disarmament talks has been an obstacle to progress. For a long time there has been in the assembly a feeling that, due to the composition of the security council on which it is based, the disarmament machinery has been heavily weighted towards the western point of view. This was a genuine issue, one which prompted the remarks of the Prime Minister in the assembly. In the light of the soviet position, many countries felt it imperative to remedy this matter, if only to reassure countries all over the world of the sincerity of the western desire for a negotiated disarmament agreement. That has been done, and many countries are now looking forward to playing a constructive, if small, role in the complex negotiations which must still take place.

External Affairs
It would, of course, serve no constructive end to allow the commission to become a mere sounding board for soviet propaganda. In our negotiations we were constantly mindful of this danger. But since the passage of our resolution all of our subcommittee allies have indicated to us that they have no misgivings at all about the composition of the new commission. On the contrary, they are glad to welcome countries which ought, in their opinion, to be able to learn more of the complex issues involved in this great question of disarmament.
The point has been made by the hon. member for Algoma East that if agreement could not be reached in a committee of five, it cannot be expected in a committee of 25. This compares the old subcommittee of the disarmament commission with the new disarmament commission as a whole. Perhaps I did not understand the hon. member's remarks this afternoon, but that was the interpretation I took from them.
The new larger disarmament commission of 25 members does not rule out further meetings of a smaller subcommittee. If the major powers concerned will agree, there can be further meetings of the old, indeed of a new, subcommittee. There was also in New York a Mexican proposal for a subcommittee to meet under a special chairman such as the president of the general assembly. This too would be by no means unacceptable to us if the major powers would agree to it. However, during the recent weeks of meetings of the general assembly it did not appear that this proposal was acceptable to any of the major powers, nor indeed did it appear to be acceptable to anyone else in the assembly. The problem was to find machinery acceptable to all or, failing that, to offer a reasonable compromise to make our desire for further negotiations on disarmament abundantly clear.
One can still ask whether the Soviet union can afford to boycott a commission where countries like India, Egypt and Yugoslavia have come to hear the U.S.S.R. defend its position on disarmament. Thanks to our resolution, if the U.S.S.R. does boycott the commission it will no longer have any respectable reason for doing so. It will certainly not endear itself to these uncommitted countries; while the west, on the other hand, will be in a position to make its point of view much more clearly understood.
In the voting on our resolution, the U.S.S.R. was already isolated from these uncommitted countries. Many other countries have approached us to express their gratitude and relief that a sound and constructive resolution to expand the commission was introduced and passed. For this means that the

assembly has done what it could to further disarmament negotiations; and the onus is now squarely on the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to justify its position. Even the U.S.S.R. cannot continually fly in the face of world public opinion, and particularly public opinion in those uncommitted parts of the world in Asia and Africa. Since the end of world war II the U.S.S.R. has been attempting to gain the sympathetic public and official support of these new Asian and African countries in order to further her plans for ultimate world control. If the U.S.S.R. continues to act as she did on the disarmament question as well as in the recent Syrian situation referred to this afternoon in the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and in the Hungarian affair of scarcely a year ago, she-that is the Soviet union-will not long continue to enjoy much public or official support in the neutralist countries in Asia or Africa.
By having exposed the true motives and behaviour of the U.S.S.R. to the peoples of the uncommitted countries of Asia and Africa and indeed everywhere, we have done much not only to prevent further Russian advances in the world struggle for men's minds but we have indeed, in my opinion, forced her to give ground.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house listened with interest this afternoon to the first statement on foreign affairs by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith). While we cannot all share in domestic matters the same political views, he has given us a good example today, as he did on the day when he was sworn in, of the possibility of a maximum measure of unity between all political parties in the important matter of our relations to other nations in the world.
No doubt it was part of this desire to transend political divisions which caused him to remind us again of the signal recognition given to one of our number in this house, the former secretary of state for external affairs who recently was awarded the Nobel peace prize. I would like, as a colleague of the member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson), to take the opportunity in this particular debate to say that those of us on this side of the house join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs in noting our pride and satisfaction at the recognition of the efforts of his predecessor, over a long period, in the cause of peace.
I think it is appropriate that I should utter these words because, except for the right hon. gentleman who leads the official opposition, possibly I have had a better opportunity than anyone else in this house to know how

deserving has been the hon. member for .Algoma East to become the recipient of a Nobel award. I have served with him on many occasions at the United Nations, both when he was president of the assembly and when he was chairman of the political committee of the United Nations, as well as in other fields of endeavour in international affairs, and I can attest in all sincerity to the fact that he, above all others, is deserving of this recognition given to him in succession to such great figures in foreign affairs as Aristide Briand, the former minister of foreign affairs for France; Frank Kellogg, the former secretary of state for foreign affairs in the United States-(co-authors of the Kellogg-Briand pact)-Dr. Albert Schweitzer and of course Dr. Ralph Bunche. I think it is also appropriate that I should say, as one who on behalf of some hon. members recently had conversations with the secretary general of the United Nations with regard to his coming to Canada to join with us in marking this recognition, that the secretary general regrets events of the moment necessitate his departure for Europe. And so he will be unable to share with members of this house the privilege of paying tribute to the honourable member for Algoma East.
The country, and I know the house, welcomes the appointment of the hon. gentleman to a portfolio which, until his appointment, was held by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker), a busy Prime Minister whose preoccupations, understandably, in so many fields of action did not in the judgment of many people commend the retention by him of the administration of external affairs. This is particularly so at a time when the international situation is so tenuous, so tense, and so difficult of solution.
We have, I think, because of the complexity of modern day events, realized that the decision of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King to have a separate minister in charge of external affairs was indeed a wise one. It is not possible under the circumstances obtaining in the world and which now confront us for anyone to hold the portfolio of Secretary of State for External Affairs as a sideline. We all therefore welcomed the decision of the Prime Minister to appoint a fulltime minister of this important department. I am sure the hon. gentleman will bring to his task the qualities of intellect and heart which he possesses, and that he will pursue these matters of vital moment, with skill and tact.
As he narrated this afternoon, one could not help but conclude that basically he is carrying out a policy already laid down by his predecessor. He recognizes, of course, the
External Affairs
value of the United Nations but he, too, recognizes that Canadian foreign policy is predicated upon the fact that we are a member of the commonwealth of nations, that we are a neighbour of a great world power, the United States, and that we are an active member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. These four affiliations, it seems to me, have characterized the basic foundations of foreign policy in this country. I believe all of us recognize that while there is a difference between our affiliation or our relationship to the commonwealth and the United States of America-important as are both those relationships-we do not in any way deprecate the importance of the United Nations. This principle was set forth-as we were reminded by the member for Algoma East, this afternoon-by the Prime Minister himself in the statement made by him on September 23 of this year. He said that the support of the United Nations is the cornerstone of Canada's foreign policy. The Prime Minister continued:
We believe that the United Nations will grow stronger because it represents the inevitable struggle of countries to find order in their relationships and the deep longing of mankind to strive for and attain peace and justice.
Those words, somewhat similar to those uttered by the former prime minister, I believe represent the conviction of most members of this house and that of the great majority of the Canadian people, in the present and ultimate purposes of the organization which arise from the charter signed at San Francisco in 1945. The United Nations may not be the perfect instrument to preserve order among the nations, but it does represent in the international sphere the same kind of instrument which in the course of history, the community has developed to preserve order in the domestic realm. It is one to which we must give our continued support along the lines laid down by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Canada can play, notwithstanding the fact that she is not one of the great powers, an increasingly important role as was demonstrated during the past decade by the former secretary of state for external affairs and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent).
My own connection with the United Nations goes back to the first meeting at Church House in 1946 when I went to the United Nations under the leadership of the present Leader of the Opposition, and again with that right hon. gentleman to the second part of the general assembly of the United Nations, also in 1946. As I have paid inadequate but deserving tribute to one of my

External Affairs
colleagues, I think the house would want me to say that we also recognize that the former prime minister and the present Leader of the Opposition, one of those who proposed the concept of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, will be remembered in this house and in this country, not only for his contribution to the development of Canada, but for his great contribution to the maintenance of peace in the world.
We will take the opportunity now, because of our membership on the security council, to play an increasingly important role, because the political questions which come before that body-a body which has, in this particular, a primacy of interest and authority-will afford to Canada and to its representative an opportunity of conciliation and mediation not open to us, except during the course of the general assembly, since the time we were last a member of the security council, when our representative was General McNaughton.
Hon. members will recall the important contribution which General McNaughton made on a number of matters, not the least being the constructive role he played in carving out national status for Indonesia. Likewise, our representative on the security council will have the opportunity of playing a useful role in matters of consequence, in a sense the kind of role signalized this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he referred to the work of the international commissions in Indochina, Laos and Vietnam.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs did not mention the situation in Cambodia where an international commission also operates. If I understood the Secretary of State for External Affairs correctly, the work of this international commission has been completed. I do not know whether or not the commission is to be disbanded but, if I may, I would suggest to the hon. minister, based on the experience of my visit to Indochina last year, that there is a role which the commission can play apart from its precise terms of reference; there are opportunities, possibly, for some form of continued action in the light, particularly, of the kind of situation which prevails in South and North Vietnam.


Sidney Earle Smith: I wonder if the hon. member for Essex East would permit me to correct an impression, which, evidently, I made upon him this afternoon? I did not intend to say, and I do not think I said, that the international commission would be abandoned. I did intimate to the house that the task of the commission in Cambodia is about completed. The other

international commissions in Laos and Vietnam still have work to do.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I thank the
Secretary of State for External Affairs for that correction. Likely the error was mine, not his. But I had the impression a year ago that the situation in South Vietnam was such that that kind of international body could serve a desired purpose. But my reference to it is largely to point out that a country like Canada can play a useful role, not only at the United Nations but in keeping the peace, as these commissions have obviously done in all three countries of the old Indochina.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs was too enthusiastic in the conclusions he reached about Laos, but in any event I am sure he is aware of the implications that flow from the integration of the Pathet Lao with the royal government. This is a matter which requires great scrutiny, having in mind the need to preserve the integrity, not only of Laos but of South Vietnam, and of Cambodia and countries like Thailand in the neighbouring area.
We listened a few moments ago, Mr. Speaker, to a detailed and interesting account of recent disarmament discussions in the general assembly given by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), parliamentary assistant to the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker). I think the house would wish me to say to him how grateful we are for this report of his endeavours. The question of disarmament does not necessarily mean that the continuation of heavy armaments is in itself a necessary provocation for conflict. The high level of armaments is rather a reflection of the condition of our world than a cause of those conditions. In any event, as the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold well) said this afternoon, it must be the aim of governments by all means within their power always observing the requirements of security, to do everything they can to ease the heavy burden placed on their peoples by high defence expenditures.
But I think we must bear in mind that this situation is not one of our making. The kind of world in which we live demands, at this stage, certainly, strength of arms in the face of the might of that group of communist nations which confronts us in almost every sphere of international action. In the face of this situation there can certainly be no unilateral disarmament. That mistake we made once before. But just as we have learned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has served as an insurance premium against aggression, I think we must recognize that difficult as it is, we must be practical in our

assessment of the need for armaments and for defence arrangements at this time.
However, I repeat we must seize every opportunity at the United Nations and elsewhere to resolve some of the great political problems which confront us, all of which have their bearing on whether or not it would be possible to bring about any specific measure of disarmament. The present disarmament discussions arose, I suspect, out of the decision of the Soviet union in September, 1954, when that country announced it had abandoned the position which it had taken since the end of the second world war. No longer, Andrei Vishinski said, would the Soviet union insist on an agreement to ban the use and production of atomic weapons as a condition precedent to disarmament in the conventional arms field. And it was that important declaration of the abandonment of a principle, which had stood in the way of any progress whatsoever during the preceding 10 years, which gave some encouragement to the possibility of arriving at some agreement through the subcommittee of five of the disarmament commission in the fall of 1954. That subcommittee is an agent of the disarmament commission itself, which had its genesis in the first meetings of the United Nations. This subcommittee was created- and this should be remembered in the light of what has just been said-primarily to provide a more efficient way of providing a forum for discussion of disarmament objectives. It was said, and argued, that the only way to provide discussion of disarmament was to see that it took place among those nations on whose shoulders rested the primary responsibility, namely the great powers. These meetings were to be held in camera. In this way it was hoped there might ensue a comprehensive agreement on disarmament.
I served on the disarmament committee over a period of two years. I think I can speak with some experience of the nature of those discussions and of the problems involved. I do not propose to go into any detail, but may I say that once it was evident that the Soviet union had abandoned its original position of insisting on the prohibition of the manufacture and use of atomic weapons as a condition precedent to action in the conventional field, an effort was made to try to get some limitation in the number of armed forces which would be available to the five countries represented on the subcommittee, namely, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, the Soviet union and Canada.
It looked at one time as though it was going to be possible to arrive at some limitation of armaments and that we were going to be able to get an agreement; for instance, that
External Affairs
the Soviet union would be limited to 2,500,000 men and the United States to a similar limitation, Great Britain and France to 650,000 and countries like Canada to something like 250,000. But one of the essential conditions laid down was that at every step there should be in existence some organ of control that would include inspection, not initially air inspection but certainly ground inspection. In any event the position taken by the western nations was that we must first of all agree on what were the objects of control and then we must decide on the methods by which the control system was to be operated. The concept of control, we thought, need not be complete; it need be no greater than the stage by stage process agreed on. In any event there must be some control body and the methods necessary to make that control effective must be agreed upon in advance. There should be no reliance merely on the good faith of the Soviet union, we argued.
I agree with what the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has said. The reason we have not had any real success in this matter lies largely at the doorstep of the Soviet union which at no time was willing to give any indication of its concept of what the objects of control were or what steps should be taken to make that control effective. That will be found not as a matter of obiter dictum by those of us who participated in these discussions; it is a matter of record that at every turn when these requests for these indications were put the Soviet union was unwilling to give an answer which would give some justification for feeling that at least in one stage or in one step some progress could be made without violating the conditions of national security.
We were confronted not only with the control of conventional arms but the more difficult question of the control of nuclear weapons. The house will recall that in July of 1955 the heads of the governments of the four great powers met in Geneva. Because of the difficulties of control and because it was recognized by the Soviet union and by the United States through Premier Bulganin and President Eisenhower that it was not possible to control nuclear weapons that question had to be shelved. In the meantime it was agreed that some effort should be made at reaching a partial agreement on disarmament. Let me repeat, it was because the complete * elimination of nuclear weapons could not at that time be effectively controlled or made part of any program of disarmament capable of implementation in the foreseeable future that President Eisenhower, as a means of

External Affairs
creating a healthier international climate, suggested a method to avoid the dangers of a surprise attack.
The house will recall that that proposal involved the exchange of military blueprints as well as affording to both sides the opportunity of aerial inspection. The proposal was not accepted by the Soviet union although it was accepted at that time in principle by Canada and accepted by the prime minister of this country in greater detail during the course of the last summer.
The history of this matter then is that if we have not succeeded in reducing armaments we must blame the intransigent position taken by the Soviet union. This does not mean that the fault is all on one side nor am I suggesting that. I say now as a private member that I think it is regrettable more consideration was not given two years ago, not only to dealing with the question of armaments in being but with the question of weapons not then in existence. We are now in the age of the intercontinental ballistic missile. Its significance for the world of course needs no comment by me. The position of countries like the United Kingdom only 800 miles away, and countries now within the reach of missiles with a travel power of 5,000 miles speaks eloquently for the potential power of this new instrument of war.
The proposal was then made-and this was along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar-that the scientists of the world dealing with outer space and with future satellites and the like should foregather under international auspices, just as they did in Geneva in 1955 prior to the setting up of the atomic energy agency, to see if they could not pool their knowledge in the hope of avoiding the terrible installations of war that are now apparently a fact. Well, that is all history but it does in part reflect the reluctance and I believe the unwillingness of the Soviet union to recognize that this development, costly and burdensome as it is on the peoples of the world and diverting as it does our resources from more constructive purposes, gave the Soviet union the opportunity of making the contribution which their leaders now say they are prepared to do and which they urge can now be done in new meetings and in new peace pacts. I believe that the world does not want new peace pacts; what it wants is a determination on the part of the Soviet union to live up to the commitments to which she has already obligated herself. That is the way, it seems to me, to begin to deal with the situations that confront us.
The hon. member for Algoma East this afternoon raised another question to which

I would like to devote a few moments. He referred to the matter of continental air defence known as NORAD, the defence of the North American continent, now under the command of General Partridge of the United States air force. No one will quarrel with the importance of this particular objective. While all the details are not known to us, and on that account do not endow us with the opportunity of passing a final judgment as to merit, it would seem at least that the objective the government had in mind in the concurrence it has given is one to which there can in principle certainly be no exception taken. Indeed in this thermonuclear age the only way we can defend ourselves, as we learned in 1947 when we set up NATO, is by some common defensive arrangement among likeminded nations. Certainly the defence of this continent presupposes common action between the United States and Canada. Therefore, any observations that we make on this side with regard to this matter or any questions we put have nothing whatsoever to do with the objective of preserving and guaranteeing the maximum measure of defence for the North American continent.
We are a nation dedicated to the principle of parliamentary democracy and under our system of government while the cabinet, the executive, is responsible for the formulation of foreign policy and also responsible for its execution, nevertheless either during the stage of negotiation-and that is a matter to be determined by the government-or after negotiations have been concluded and policies decided on it is the obligation of government under our parliamentary tradition to submit its policies to the representatives of the people for approval.
We are not asking the government to let this parliament decide on policy. We recognize that it is the responsibility of government alone to decide policy, but once they have decided, parliament has the right to be informed, to be given the opportunity of approving or disapproving. That opportunity has not been given to us in this matter. In fairness to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Pearkes), this particular arrangement is of an interim character, as he himself says. What is that interim arrangement? We have not been told about it. We are entitled to know how it was reached. As the former secretary of state for external affairs said today, while we have no right to ask what discussion has taken place in cabinet, we have the right to know whether or not there was a discussion in cabinet on this matter. We have the right to-


Mr. Pearkes:: May I ask a question? The hon. member will recall that the Prime Minister said this matter had been discussed in cabinet.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What the Prime Minister said in answer to the questions I put to him was that this represented the policy of the government as a whole. That was the reply of the Prime Minister to my question. Was this matter discussed in cabinet? Was this matter discussed in the defence committee? When I asked these questions exception was taken to them. The Prime Minister told us later that the pattern being followed in this matter was the same as that we had followed in the matter of the Ogdensburg agreement which followed the discussions between the president of the United States and Mr. Mackenzie King in 1940. Again the North Atlantic Treaty Organization had been decided on by the government of the day as a matter of policy, and later that treaty was submitted to parliament for approval. Contrary to what the Prime Minister did say, the Ogdensburg agreement likewise was submitted to parliament; it was submitted to parliament on November 12, 1940, by the right hon. prime minister of that day. He outlined not only the terms of the agreement but the conversations that began a few months previously at Hyde Park with the president of the United States, and he also indicated something which has not been yet indicated by the Minister of National Defence.


William Joseph Browne: May I ask
the hon. member a question? He just made the remark that the prime minister of the day introduced the debate in the House of Commons in August, 1940, and then he went on to say that the conversations had taken place a few months previously at Hyde Park. How much had parliament learned in the meantime?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: If my hon. friend will look at the debate he will see that parliament was told everything. There is a difference between conversations in the stage of negotiation which had yielded no decisions and conversations which resulted in actual agreements.
I argued a few moments ago that no one expects the government, in the conduct of its foreign policy, during negotiations to reveal the details of those negotiations. No one contends that; but what I am saying is this. What the prime minister of that day did, as a result of his discussions at Ogdensburg with the president of the United States, was to give the information to parliament at the earliest possible opportunity. He outlined for parliament the nature of those discussions and the agreement concluded.
External Affairs


George Randolph Pearkes: Agreement made in August.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: All right, let me finish this. I asked the Minister of National Defence whether before the present government arrived at its decision, did it, let us say, as a matter of courtesy-although I think it could be put on much stronger grounds- advise Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom? My hon. friend has not yet replied to that question. In the case of the Ogdensburg agreement, the prime minister of the day pointed out at page 56 of Hansard that His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom had been apprised of the nature of the discussions with the president of the United States.
I am not suggesting that there is any constitutional necessity for doing so, but in the matter of collaboration, particularly in matters of defence, it seems to be the elementary thing to do, namely to discuss such matters with one's associates, one's allies. We asked the government, was there an order in council giving effect to the decision arrived at? Was there a minute of council?
And, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that when we asked for a minute, on reflection I thought that I should not persist in that request, that possibly it was an improper one. But on further reflection, I do not think it was because I find that on November 12, 1940, the prime minister of that day, in reporting on the Ogdensburg agreement, actually tabled in parliament the minute of cabinet by which this matter was decided on by the executive arm of government.
In this particular matter, a matter of the greatest importance to this nation, we have no document whatsoever, no interim agreement, no order in council, no minute of cabinet.


Howard Charles Green: May 1 ask the hon. member a question? Is he suggesting that cabinet minutes should be tabled in this house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend has not been listening to what I have said.


Howard Charles Green: I have.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On November 12, the government of the day did table the minute.


Howard Charles Green: Are you suggesting now that any cabinet minute should be tabled in the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, I do not suggest that. It is up to the government to decide whether any particular document that it has should be tabled. If it involves matters of security, the government alone should determine whether or not that information

External Affairs
should be given; but, subject to that reservation, this house ought to have some indication of the decision taken by the government in respect of a matter so important as this one.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the hon. member again? He has not answered my question. Is ne claiming that any cabinet minute should be tabled in the house, if requested?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That has nothing to do with this and my hon. friend knows it. There are certain-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Howard Charles Green: You have a phony argument, that is all.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that in a matter of this sort there is no occasion for the kind of levity suggested by his question.


Some hon. Members:: Answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are not asking for any information that is contrary to the rules of security. The other day, when the hon. member for Algoma East was putting his questions, the Prime Minister said: All right, we will give you this information, but on your shoulders will rest the responsibility for all that is revealed.
The hon. member for Algoma East quite properly replied, of course, as he repeated today, that that is a responsibility that belongs to the government. We have not had in this house the slightest information, except to be told by the Minister of National Defence that the responsibility in this matter, in the final analysis, rests with the government of the day and not with the continental air defence commander. He has not yet cleared up the inconsistency between that reply and the statement made by General Partridge on September 6, in which he said there would be no opportunity of consulting Washington and that there was no necessity in the context for him to consult the President of the United States. I do not think I do the Minister of National Defence injustice when I say that he has given us no information whatsoever by which we can reach a satisfactory conclusion, in the absence of the presentation in this house of the interim agreement. Here we have Time magazine-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member at this stage in his argument but it is my duty to inform him that his time has expired.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we all regret the changes in the rules that require the subject to be finished tonight. I know I do for one, because I had hoped to have a few

minutes to say something about the Colombo plan conference which was held in Saigon in October. Still, I will take advantage of the few minutes that remain.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Nanaimo rose first in his place.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes that are left tonight I have one or two things that I should like to say. In the first place, I should like to add my congratulations to those of others to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) on the assumption of his post and taking his seat in the house, and also to congratulate the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. Pearson) on his receipt of the Nobel peace prize. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was very disappointed that neither the present Secretary of State for External Affairs nor the former secretary of state for external affairs gave to the parliament of Canada this afternoon any comprehensive survey of the world situation in which we find ourselves today. We had instead a rather limited account of certain actions in the United Nations. We had some very smart political footwork from the former secretary of state for external affairs, but it does seem to me that the people of Canada are asking for something better than that today.
I believe that the people of Canada are asking for the type of thing to which the leader of the C.C.F. referred this afternoon when he referred to Mr. George Keenan's statement with regard to the solution of problems in Europe. I believe the people of Canada will find a note in Dr. Hugh Keenley-side's recent speech that will strike a responsive chord, and I think that now is the time when both the government of the day and the official opposition should be taking a very serious look at the world in which we find ourselves to decide whether or not Canada's role should be entirely different from that which we have pursued in the past.
I believe we have to ask ourselves certain questions and to abide by the logic of the answers. The first question that I suggest we have to ask ourselves is, do we consider that the Soviet union is preparing at any time to launch a military war of aggression on the rest of the world or do we consider that the evidence points in the other direction? Many spokesmen in eminent places in the world have of recent months reached the conclusion that there is no evidence to support the idea that the rulers of the Soviet union are so insane that they are preparing to launch a war that must be as destructive to themselves as to the west.

If we agree with that point of view, Mr. Speaker, then I think we have to ask ourselves another question. In the light of that assessment of the situation, what is the most useful role that Canada can play in order to relieve the present extremely dangerous world tensions? I was thinking earlier this evening when we heard a long report on the abortive disarmament discussions at the United Nations that perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree entirely when we imagine that it is possible by such discussions to bring about a disarmament program without having previously allayed those tensions in the world which have caused the armament race. I think perhaps we are trying to put the cart before the horse, and I believe history bears me out on that.
I have lived long enough to remember repeated occasions upon which there were attempts to stop earlier armament races and on no occasions were those attempts successful. They were not successful in those earlier periods. There was always the possibility of military success in carrying out national policy and if there is a possibility today of reaching some agreement on disarmament it can only be on the basis that there is no longer that possibility of military victory.
I suggest, sir, that we should take another and rather realistic look, not without regard to our national pride, as to just how important a role Canada can play in actual fact in the military situation in the world today. I think we have to admit that our role will be almost imperceptible no matter what efforts we might put into it. What we are facing is two giants poised in an extremely dangerous position and because all our sympathies, shall I say, lie with one of those giants, is no reason in my opinion for us imagining that we are serving the cause of peace by tying ourselves to the policies of that one great power. In fact, it seems to me that we have a duty towards our friends in the United States to aid them in extricating themselves from the extremely dangerous position in which they find themselves today.
I suggest, sir, along the lines suggested by the leader of this group earlier this evening, that Canada should turn her attention to other serious matters in the world rather than making and continuing what are now admittedly ineffectual attempts to make a worth-while and significant contribution to the war between the giants. All the areas of the world that are undeveloped at the present time are in fact the most important sections of th,e world today because it is on the decisions made in those nations that will depend whether or not the spirit of democracy or totalitarianism is going to prevail in 96698-99J
External Affairs
the world. We in Canada have a choice of continuing with defence expenditures-


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty, in accordance with the arrangement reached between all parties, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Courtemanche in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:


[Stage Direction]
61. Departmental administration, $604,729.
[Stage Direction]
119. Departmental administration, $2,157,871.
[Stage Direction]
Defence services
[Stage Direction]
240. To provide for the Canadian forces, the defence research board and other expenditures relating to defence, including costs incurred in the participation of the Canadian forces in the United Nations emergency force and contributions toward the military costs of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; to authorize expenditures in the current year out of the amount hereby provided, not exceeding $130,000,000, under the provisions of section 3 of the Defence Appropriation Act, 1950, and to provide that, notwithstanding subsection (3) of that section, where equipment or supplies are transferred, the estimated present value thereof shall be credited to this vote instead of being paid into the special account mentioned in the saio subsection (3), and when so credited may be expended for the purposes of the Canadian forces; and notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act to authorize total commitments for the foregoing purposes of $3,338,164,131 regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,521,731,982 will come due for payment in future years), $1,669,450,149.
[Stage Direction]
Customs and excise divisions-
290. General administration, $3,761,303.
PRIVY COUNCIL Privy council office-
337. General administration, $444,962.
[Stage Direction]
414. Departmental administration, $672,473.
Proceedings reported.

['Mr. Speaker, I move for Mr. Fleming, seconded by Mr. Brooks:\nThat items numbered 94 to 118 inclusive of the main estimates 1957-58, item numbered 617 of the supplementary estimates 1957-58 and item numbered 778 of the further supplementary estimates (2), 1957-58, be withdrawn from the committee of supply, and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.']
Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, may I have unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions in order to move that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs be referred to the standing committee?

Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the minister Mr. Green: The present intention is to con-has leave to revert to motions?	tinue with estimates on Friday.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I move for Mr. Fleming, seconded by Mr. Brooks:
That items numbered 94 to 118 inclusive of the main estimates 1957-58, item numbered 617 of the supplementary estimates 1957-58 and item numbered 778 of the further supplementary estimates (2), 1957-58, be withdrawn from the committee of supply, and referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Lionel Chevrier: What is the business for tomorrow?


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall commence with the resolution preceding the measure to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is No. 14 on today's order paper. I understand arrangements have been made with the three opposition parties that this measure will be put through all stages tomorrow. Then we shall follow with the estimates of the Department of Veterans Affairs; after that the estimates of the Department of Justice and then the estimates of the Department of Naional Revenue.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the intention is for Friday? I note that the business for Thursday has been outlined but for Friday it was suggested that we might have legislation or estimates. Has that matter been decided?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps one point should be made clear, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Public Works as house leader said that it was agreed amongst the parties to put the unemployment insurance measure through all of its stages tomorrow. So far as we are concerned, I think the agreement was that if the resolution stage was completed we would not insist on second reading being held over until the next day. I am not saying that it is impossible to get it through all stages tomorrow. The point I wish to make is that if, perchance, owing to others speaking * at length, the debate is extended, it is conceivable that the legislation might not get through tomorrow. However, we have undertaken that if the debate at the resolution stage is completed, we will give consent to the second reading stage being proceeded with tomorrow.


Howard Charles Green: I believe the situation is that if the bill does not become law by Friday there will be disadvantage to the people who would be recipients of the benefits under the measure. As the hon. member knows, Thursday is a private members' day. We are never quite sure how long the other place will take to debate any of these measures as they are quite jealous of their rights. I thought it had been understood by all parties in the house that, as this is a measure which everybody appears to approve heartily, it could be put through tomorrow. However, we are in the hands of the house.


[Stage Direction]
It being seven minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Pickersgill: 1.	How many names have been definitely removed from Indian band lists as a result of action taken under section 9 of the Indian Act, since its coming into force?
2.	How many names have been definitely added to the band lists in the same circumstances?
3.	How many cases are still in dispute under section 9, subsection 3 of the Indian Act?
4.	Are there any other questions as to the Indian status of an individual still in dispute and, if so, how many?
Answer by:	Hon. E. D. Fulton (Acting
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1. 21.
2.	244.
3.	5.
4.	14.
Questions


IMPORTS OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES, B.C,
Mr. Christian: 1.	What quantities and what varieties of fruit have been imported into British Columbia during the past twelve months and what duties have been assessed and paid to the government in respect to such fruit?
2.	What quantities and what varieties of vegetables have been imported into British Columbia during the past twelve months, and what duties have been assessed and paid to the government in respect to such vegetables?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
1 and 2. The quantities and varieties of fruit and vegetables imported into British Columbia during the period August 1, 1956, to July 31, 1957, (latest period available) are shown in the attached statement.
No statistics are available for duties which have been assessed and paid to the government in respect to these imports.
In addition to the imports shown in the statement, there were some imports of "Guavas, mangoes, plantains, and pomegranates" (statistical classification 8) and of "Fresh fruits, n.o.p." (statistical classification 20) for which statistics of quantity are not available.
1552	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
1 and 2. Imports of fruits and vegetables cleared through customs ports in the province of British Columbia during the period August 1, 1956 to July 31, 1957.
Statistical	Unit of
Account	Classification reading	Quantity Quantity
2
4
6 7 9
11
13
15
17
18 19
32 34
37
39
41
43
45
47
49
51
55
57 *58 *59
111
114
116
118
120 121 122
124
126
128
130
134 137 141
144
147
149
Apples	
Apricots, quinces, passion fruit and nectarines	
Bananas	
Cherries	
Cranberries	
Grapefruit	
Grapes	
Lemons	
Limes	
Musk melons and cantaloupes	
Melons, n.o.p	
Oranges, mandarines and tangerines	
Peaches	
Pears	
Pineapples	
Plums or prunes	
Berries, n.o.p	
Strawberries	
Apples, dried	
Apricots, and nectarines dried	
Currants, dried	
Dates	
Figs, dried, and fig paste	
Peaches, dried	
Prunes or plums, dried, unpitted	
Pears, dried	
Raisins	
Fruits, dried, n.o.p	-	
Raspberries, frozen, in containers of 1 lb. or less	
Raspberries, frozen, in containers over 1 pound	
Strawberries, frozen, in containers of 1 lb. or less	
Strawberries, frozen, in containers over 1 lb	
Fruits, n.o.p., frozen, in containers, of 1 lb. or less	
Fruits, n.o.p., frozen, in containers over 1 lb	
Apricots, canned	
Peaches, canned	
Cherries, sulphured or in brine, not bottled	
Olives, sulphured or in brine, not bottled	
Pears, canned	
Pineapple, canned	
Fruits, n.o.p., canned	
Cherries, frozen, in containers of 1 lb. or less	
Cherries, frozen, in containers over 1 lb	
Mixed fruits or fruits for salads, canned	
Asparagus	
Beans, green	
Beets, n.o.p	
Cabbage	
Carrots	
Cauliflower	
Celery	
Cucumbers	 [DOT] [DOT]
Lettuce	
Mushrooms, and truffles, n.o.p	
Onions and shallots	
Peas, green	
Potatoes, sweet, and yams	
Potatoes, n.o.p	
Spinach	
Tomatoes	
Vegetables, fresh, n.o.p	
* Period January 1, to July 31, 1957 only.
Vegetables, frozen, in containers of 1 lb. or less	
Vegetables, frozen, in containers over 1 lb	
Potatoes, dried, and sweet, potatoes n.o.p	
Vegetables, dried, including vegetable flour, n.o.p., for edible purposes..
Tomatoes, canned	
Asparagus, canned	
Corn, canned	
Mushrooms and truffles, canned	
Peas, canned	
Vegetables, n.o.p., canned	
Pimentos, canned	
Beans, green or wax, canned	
Lb.	6,680,871
Lb.	1,982,919
Cwt.	444,675
Lb.	108,348
Lb.	457,782
Lb.	12,902,287
Lb.	16,643,422
Lb.	3,286,171
Lb.	36,757
Lb.	5,731,897
No.	619,236
Cu.foot	1,674,932
Lb.	6,312,459
Lb.	2,772,366
Lb.	953,941
Lb.	2,185,444
Lb.	9,036
Lb.	6,504,759
Lb.	151,960
Lb.	92,076
Lb.	2,387,082
Lb.	2,481,783
Lb.	407,376
Lb.	46,801
Lb.	1,340,663
Lb.	9,078
Lb.	10,964,962
Lb.	52,778
Lb.	600
Lb.	16,414
Lb.	248,625
Lb.	430,047
Lb.	27,877
Lb.	885,139
Lb.	627,791
Lb.	3,480,897
Lb.	531,874
Lb.	900,347
Lb.	337,229
Lb.	5,625,377
Lb.	2,955,161
Lb.	240'
Lb.	31,500'
Lb.	4,328,692
Lb.	1,294,528
Lb.	377,882
Lb.	177,399
Lb.	8,083,246
Lb.	11,812,723
Lb.	5,723,128
Lb.	8,864,220
Lb.	1,563,071
Lb.	15,899,235
Lb.	48,651
Lb.	15,101,321
Lb.	292,658
Cwt.	16,660
Cwt.	567,102
Lb.	984,762
Lb.	17,307,357
Lb.	11,255,151
Lb.	1,484,780
Lb.	1,886,917
Lb.	71,673
Lb.	120,559
Lb.	5,576,729
Lb.	565,247
Lb.	2,338,661
Lb.	72,733
Lb.	83,035
Lb.	2,386,324
Lb.	41,346
Lb.	4,625


PULP AND PAPER MILL, MIRAMICHI RIVER
Mr. McWilliam: Has the federal government made representation to the provincial government of New Brunswick, towards the establishment of a pulp and paper mill on the Miramichi river in that province?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister oi
Northern Affairs and National Resources):
There is no record of any such representations having been made.


ICEBREAKING EXPENDITURES, LAKEHEAD
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What has been the contract price paid for icebreaking at the Canadian lakehead harbours for 1955, 1956 and 1957?
2.	Is the contract price set annually? If not, what basis of variation is there for changing ice difficulties from year to year?
3.	When will the tenders or contracts be advertised for the 1958 season?
4.	Has the department any knowledge of suitable icebreakers at, or likely to be at, the Canadian lakehead for the 1958 season?
5.	If so, what are the ships and owners?
Answer by: Mr. MacDonald, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Transport:
1.	$95,000 per annum under a three-year contract, January 1, 1954 to January 1, 1957. Besides icebreaking, this contract covered the transportation of lightkeepers, their assistants and families to and from certain isolated island stations in the vicinity of the lakehead; and the maintenance and servicing of certain floating aids to navigation. A separate contract was entered into for the opening of navigation, 1957, at $75,000 and covered light-keeper transportation and buoy placing, as did the previous three-year contract.
2.	(a) Answered by No. 1 above, (b) There has been no basis for price variation. Contracts have been on the Arm price basis and
Questions
the contractor assumes the risk for severe winter conditions and consequent prolonged icebreaking activities.
3.	On or about October 1, 1958, if the Department of Transport's icebreaker and lighthouse tender, presently under construction, is not ready for service in time.
4.	A contract is being entered into for the winter season of 1957-58 with the Hindman Transportation Company, Owen Sound, Ontario, which was the successful tenderer in a recent tender call for this purpose.
5.	S.S. Ruth Hindman and M.V. Helen Hindman owned by Hindman Transportation Co., Ltd, Owen Sound, Ontario.


N.H.A.-OPEN END MORTGAGES
Mr. Martin (Essex East): 1.	Has the government received representations from any body, through the regional employment committee of the city of Windsor, to consider the amending of the National Housing Act to allow for the setting up of open-end mortgages?
2.	If so, has the government taken any action to amend the National Housing Act in line with such suggestions?
Answer by:	Mr. Hodgson, Parliamentary
Assistant, for the Minister of Public Works:
1.	Officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation met with a delegation from the city of Windsor, led by Mayor Michael Patrick, on October 7, 1957 and discussed with them some aspects of having an open-end clause in mortgages taken to secure loans under the National Housing Act.
2.	If it is decided to introduce legislation to amend the housing act in this or other particulars, an announcement will be made by the government at the appropriate time.



Wednesday, November 27, 1957



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. John Pallet! (Peel) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on banking and commerce, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough) presented the first and second reports of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and moved that the first report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.