1958-08-23

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting this house. It arises from the proceedings of yesterday when we were discussing the estimates of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. We discussed those estimates without having before us the report of the department which is required by statute, under the act setting up the department. It will be found in volume II of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, as section 10 of that act. The last report from this department is for the period 1955-56; hence the provisions of the statute were not complied with when we were discussing the work of this department.
Attention was called to that fact by two members on this side of the house. Certain explanations were given, Mr. Speaker, which were not impressive, especially the explanation as to lack of facilities for printing. As perhaps some hon. members will recall, in 1945 I think it was, the report on the public accounts was not printed but was tabled, as required by statute, in manuscript form by the minister concerned. Lest anyone should think this is just a minor matter and should not be raised at this time, may I quote, in support of the seriousness of this matter, a statement made in the House of Commons on November 7, 1949, in connection with the alleged failure of a member of the government at that time to produce a report as required by statute.
I quote the remarks of the then member for Lake Centre, as recorded at page 1504 of Hansard for November 7, 1949 as follows:
Parliament has the right to expect that ministers of the crown shall live up to the provisions of statutes passed by parliament; for if these be not lived up to, parliamentary responsibility ends, and a contempt of parliament occurs which should not be permitted to pass uncensured.
Later on page 1505 the same hon. member said:
The government's action in this matter cannot be laughed off. It strikes at the vitals of our democratic system; for if we cannot rely on ministers of the crown or on the government to do those things which, under law, they are required to do, we in
the opposition, instead of being able to accept what ministers of the government say and to believe that they are carrying out their responsibilities under the law, are actually placed in a position where we must begin to wonder. I doubt whether we would have had the report yet if the commissioner had not resigned and brought the matter to a head.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: May I ask the hon. member to what that reference was made?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The reference was made to a report under the Combines Investigation Act, which is not analogous to this report, of course, nor were the circumstances analogous.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because, as I explained, there was no breach of law in that case. If the hon. member for Lake Centre, who is now Prime Minister, took the view that the circumstances in that case were of such importance that they warranted the use of such strong language, I ask what attitude should be taken with respect to this particular matter wherein a report has not been produced as required by this law; indeed, a report has not been made on this department since March 31, 1956.


John George Diefenbaker: I think it was Mr. Churchill who once said that nobody should generate more steam than he can conveniently contain, and I think this probably applies to the words used by the hon. member at this time. I do not have the document before me to which reference was made, but my recollection is that my remarks at that time were not made about an ordinary report of which production should be made to the house but rather to the fact that there was concealment on the part of the then government of a combines investigation report, concealment for such a length of time that when it was finally produced it was too late for prosecution in accordance with the recommendations in the report. And when the hon. gentleman generates this amount of steam over-


Lester Bowles Pearson: A breach of the law.


John George Diefenbaker: -a report which in the nature of things is one which is required to be made, I can only leave it to the house to judge the difference between the concealment of a report which resulted in action through the courts being denied and the failure to table a report, for which failure

Inquiries of the Ministry no doubt an explanation has been given by the minister. In one case justice was defeated and in the other case-


Mr. Pickersgill:: There was contempt of parliament.


John George Diefenbaker: In the other case it was one of those inadvertencies which should be brought to the attention of the house, but not in such extraordinarily exaggerated language.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Prime Minister's remarks make it necessary for me to add a word. The Prime Minister, of course, is an expert in concealed reports-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -but the circumstances with respect to the earlier concealed report were not as stated by him. The Prime Minister himself admitted that he did not have the record before him. In any event, my question of privilege concerned an obligation under a statute which should have been complied with before we were asked to discuss the estimates of the department concerned. I think the words of the Prime Minister which I have quoted from Hansard do outline the seriousness of that kind of obligation which was infringed upon on the occasion in question.
Therefore I thought it quite right to bring this matter to the attention of the house. The Prime Minister, who of course is a great authority on parliamentary privilege and parliamentary rights, on this occasion seems not to appreciate the importance of this particular matter.



IRELAND


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the Prime Minister and the members of the house have read reports to the effect that in Ireland they are experiencing what is tantamount to a potato famine as the result of adverse climatic conditions, and that great distress is resulting. I ask the Prime Minister whether he has considered any way in which the government of Canada could help the Irish people, both in southern Ireland and northern Ireland, to meet the situation confronting them at the present time.


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally there is every sympathetic feeling for the situation prevailing in Ireland. We recall that more than 100 years ago, when a similar situation was most

serious, it resulted in mass migrations from that country to the great benefit of the countries to which those migrations took place.
May I say that there has been no consideration given as yet to this matter. No representations have been made, and indeed the matter had not been brought to my attention. But I can certainly say this: that having regard to the situation, if there are within our country, as I am sure there are, available supplies which will be acceptable to all of Ireland, whether north or south-and I am using that expression advisedly-I can say, and I know the hon. gentleman will join with me, that everything that can possibly be done by our country should be done and will be done.



LEAD AND ZINC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question either to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of a Canadian Press report this morning which states that with the defeat in congress of the bill to provide mineral subsidies, pressure is being increased on the President to raise tariffs on Canadian lead and zinc.
Could the minister say what representations are being made to Washington, and what progress Canada is making in preventing this undesirable step being taken?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the press report referred to, but as hon. members well know our relations with Washington are very good at this time, as instanced by the action taken by the President the other day in permitting seed grain from Canada to continue to enter the United States despite a suggestion by congress that it should be excluded.
We are confident that similar action with respect to other aspects of our trade with the United States will have the same type of considerate treatment. The people at Washington are thoroughly well informed on the Canadian point of view on all matters affecting trade between our two countries.



REPORTED STATEMENT BY U.S. COMMERCIAL ATTACHE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Koofenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view

of the statement attributed to the commercial attache of the United States embassy in Ottawa in an interview with the Canadian Press, to the effect that the Canadian manufacturers are missing many opportunities to sell in the United States market and that many Canadian businessmen just do not know how to make business connections in the United States and are losing a lot of business as a result; and in view of the number of officials of his department resident in the United States, can the minister inform the house if this state of affairs exists and if so what action is being taken to correct the situation?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for sending me notice of this question. I have read the press report attributed to the commercial attach# of the United States. I do not for one minute think Canadian businessmen are missing many opportunities in the United States. Our exports from Canada to the United States increased by 2 per cent and are at a total of $2.9 billion for last year, which is a very substantial amount of trade indeed, representing 60 per cent of our exports. That would not have come about unless Canadian businessmen were particularly enterprising in selling Canadian products abroad.
With regard to the number of officials of this department in the United States, I am glad the hon. member drew attention to that matter. We have 16 representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce located at various points in the United States; in Washington, four; New York, three; Boston, one; Chicago, two; Detroit, two; Los Angeles, one; New Orleans, one; San Francisco, one; and Seattle, one, making a total of 16. These representatives of the Department of Trade and Commerce are constantly in touch with Canadian businessmen pointing out to them opportunities that exist for the sale of Canadian goods in the United States. Our Canadian businessmen are showing commendable enterprise in pushing the sale of Canadian products not only in the United States but elsewhere throughout the world.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gabriel Roberge (Megantic):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour or, in his absence, to the acting minister. Has the minister or the government been asked to intervene in the longshoremen's strike in British Columbia and, if so, what reply was made to the request?
Supply-External Affairs


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: In the absence of the Minister of Labour I think I had better take that question as notice. I am sure the minister will reply on Monday.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on Monday last the Prime Minister said he would table the regulations governing visits to the D.E.W. line made under the agreement between Canada and the United States covering northern defence installations. May I ask him when we may expect the tabling of those regulations?


John George Diefenbaker: I shall have that looked into at once, Mr. Speaker.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interest of prairie grain producers in the question of deficiency payments, I wonder if the Prime Minister can say when the long awaited legislation making up the agricultural program will be introduced in this house?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that portion of the legislative program which will be brought forward for consideration at this session I would hope would be available by Tuesday or Wednesday.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS Department and missions abroad-
85. Departmental administration (including the former passport office administration), $5,533,081.


The Deputy Chairman:: We are considering the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. The first vote is No. 85, which will be found on page 17 of the blue book, with the details on page 177. Before the Secretary of State for External Affairs begins his remarks, I assume he will be speaking for more than 30 minutes. I wonder, if he should, whether the committee at this time would

Supply-External Affairs wish to give unanimous consent to extending his time beyond that period if he so wishes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to give to the members of the committee a report on the proceedings of the special emergency meeting of the general assembly of the United Nations which was adjourned on Thursday evening last.
I have prepared a statement for the information of the members of the committee. That statement will have to do with an account of the proceedings, and then I will attempt to offer some evaluation of what was achieved there, the part the Canadian delegation attempted to play, and some ideas about the immediate and long-term future that the unanimously adopted resolution may have for the peace and security of the world.
I would begin, Mr. Chairman, by recalling very briefly why the emergency special meeting of the general assembly was convened. As we all know, Mr. Chairman, the immediate reason for holding this special emergency meeting of the general assembly was the fact that the security council on August 7 had under consideration complaints that had been made to the security council by Lebanon and by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan concerning interference by other countries in their domestic affairs.
It had, of course, been hoped in the period immediately prior to that meeting that some means of resolving the issue involved might be found through the calling of a security council meeting of a rather special character, at which heads of state might attend and at which heads of states, great powers and others, could get together, formally and informally to discuss problems of the Middle East. Many of us had in mind that at such a meeting at a high level other countries which were not members, which were not represented on the security council but which were directly concerned with the problems of the Middle East, would be given an opportunity to present their views concerning those problems.
I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that hon. members will recall the Canadian government advocated the holding of such a meeting within the framework of the security council; but when it became apparent that further action in the security council was no longer possible, having regard to the lack of unanimity among the permanent members of the security council and the use of the veto by the U.S.S.R., the questions at issue were transferred to the general assembly and there was called by the U.S.S.R. an emergency special [The Deputy Chairman.]
session under the procedures envisaged in the uniting for peace resolution of November 3, 1950.
At that time the Canadian government took the stand that since a solution of the Middle East questions was still to be pursued within the United Nations framework, we were prepared to support efforts within the general assembly toward the finding of a solution of those problems.
Without going into detail of the underlying reasons for the transfer of those complaints from the security council to the general assembly, I will simply say that the Soviet union apparently decided that it might stand to gain by such a change of forum which would afford a better sounding board for propaganda steps; but I would remind the committee that the United States government had placed before the security council a proposal that a meeting of the general assembly should be held, provided that the discussions and deliberations within the security council broke down.
There were three main statements of position at the start of the general debate at the emergency session of the general assembly, and those three statements afford a background for what happened in the next 10 days. The first statement was made by the secretary general on August 8, and I would interpolate here that by that statement on August 8 at the so-called pro forma meeting of the general assembly the secretary general indeed set the tone for a constructive debate. He outlined on that occasion what he termed some of the basic needs for action in the region of the Middle East and suggested the desirability of finding a formula by which the affairs of the states of the region could be looked at very carefully and whereby they could take a more positive attitude with respect to the affairs of their neighbours.
Second, in that introductory statement he emphasized the need of finding a formula to permit a United Nations solution to the problems of Lebanon and Jordan. Third, he held forth on the need for a co-operative approach to the economic problems of the Arab Middle East. While he made no specific proposals, he succeeded on that occasion in drawing the attention of the 81 nations represented in the general assembly to the important truth that the key to the problems of the region rests largely in the hands of the states of the area themselves.
The second important contribution made to the opening discussions at the emergency session of the general assembly was made by the President of the United States of America. On August 13 he successfully attempted to translate some of the principles enunciated

by the secretary general into positive proposals. Members of the house no doubt will recall having seen references to his six points in the press. He addressed himself in a positive fashion not only to the immediate but to the long term problems of the Middle East, and I would say here that in his address to the general assembly President Eisenhower insisted at all times that any remedy for the anxious situation there and any solutions to the problems must be put forward and carried out by the United Nations. He took great care to say that he was not suggesting that the United States alone should carry out these measures, but rather would promote solutions of short term and long term problems under the aegis of the United Nations.
I would mention in this context that the President emphasized, as did the secretary general on August 8, the need to recognize the right of the peoples of the Arab nations to determine their own destinies, and he stated positively that no one could ever envisage solutions to their problems which would be permanent if they were in any manner imposed on the nations of the Middle East.
The third statement to which I should like to refer is that made by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, who promptly endorsed President Eisenhower's remarks. That is the background which set the stage for the very constructive and profitable debate.
However, I have a fourth statement in mind to which I should like to refer. At an early stage of the meetings of the emergency session of the general assembly we had the draft resolution and supporting statements of the Soviet union. Far from attempting to broaden or build upon the constructive approach that had been made by the secretary general, the President of the United States and the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom, the Soviet resolution was essentially negative, dwelling solely on the question of withdrawal of United States and United Kingdom forces from Lebanon and Jordan.
The Soviet resolution disregarded other Middle East issues, such as the economic issue and the political issue, that were directly involved in the deliberations of the security council and would have to be taken into consideration if anything constructive were to come out of the emergency session of the general assembly. Those were disregarded. The role assigned to the United Nations by the draft resolution of the U.S.S.R. would be that the secretary general would be given no opportunity to eliminate the underlying causes of tension in that area.
Supply-External Affairs
Furthermore, the accusing overtones of the statement by Mr. Gromyko when he presented the U.S.S.R. resolution, a statement which alleged aggression on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom, were clearly designed to be destructive, and held no hope or promise for reasonable and moderate discussion in the assembly free of propaganda of the cold war.
The Soviet resolution was the only one that at that time was before the emergency session of the general assembly, and may I also say here that it had no prospect of adoption because the majority of delegations recognized that this emergency session of the general assembly had been convened to do much more than simply arrange for the substitution of United Nations action for national action in Lebanon and Jordan.
That was the only resolution. By reason of that fact, the narrow and negative basis of the Soviet resolution, several countries wondered whether they could not offer to the general assembly a resolution that would be more constructive, one that would be much more satisfactory, than the one that had been proposed by the U.S.S.R.; a resolution that would lay the ground work for a comprehensive consideration of the problems of the Middle East; a resolution that would use the secretary general as its instrument, the instrument of the United Nations in this particular field of trouble and excitement; a resolution that would lay the foundations for durable peace and stability in the area.
So, as so often happens, it fell to certain middle powers to undertake the difficult task of devising a resolution which would seek to attain this objective, while at the same time taking into consideration the many widely divergent points of view and conflicting interests. So Canada and Norway found themselves playing a leading role in presenting to the general assembly a type of resolution that would be constructive and comprehensive as compared with the essentially negative one that had been presented by Mr. Gromyko of the U.S.S.R.
I seize this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to pay a tribute to the devotion and the vision of the Norwegian delegation, and I single out among that delegation the Norwegian deputy foreign minister, Mr. Hans Engen, for his hard work, his tact, and his vision with respect to the formulating of a resolution that would accomplish those objectives to which I have referred. While that was going on and we were formulating this Canadian-Norwegian resolution there were other representatives, particularly in the Afro-Asian group, who were active in drafting their own resolution which reflected their over-

Supply-External Affairs riding reoccupation with the question of troop withdrawal. The Norwegian and Canadian delegations, on the other hand, were striving, as I have indicated previously, for something much broader both in terms of assembly support and of what would enable the United Nations to attempt something by way of a permanent settlement; a resolution that would enable the United Nations, through the secretary general and otherwise, to get at the basic roots of the Middle East problem and not to deal only with the symptoms of that situation.
For our part we in the Canadian delegation kept certain principles and objectives clearly before us throughout the whole period of intense negotiation which led up to the introduction of the Canadian-Norwegian resolution, with which were associated five other sponsors. In the first place-and I dwell on this point, Mr. Chairman-we in the Canadian delegation wanted something which would command the support of the Arabs themselves; for it seemed obvious that there could be no durable settlement in the Middle East without not only the consent of the Arab countries but their active cooperation. It might have been possible- I think it would have been possible-for the Canadian-Norwegian resolution to carry the required two-thirds majority vote; but if the Arabs were opposed to that resolution, we could not look forward to any success in seeking to solve the problems of the Middle East.
The second principle that the Canadian delegation had in mind always-and I say again throughout the intensive negotiations- was that regional support alone, the support of the Arab countries, would not be enough or would not suffice without the complementary support and co-operation of the great powers, all of whom are committed in various ways in the disputes of the Middle East.
Third, the Canadian delegation was intent upon finding a reasonable solution satisfactory to all the principal states concerned to cover the problem that had been brought forward on many occasions, the problem of troop withdrawal. This would have to be something which would give to the United Nations and particularly to the secretary general a central role without, however, confining the mandate to the narrow issue of troop withdrawal.
It would at the same time-I refer to the draft resolution-we hoped create a situation by which the United Nations would be enabled to exert a benevolent and constructive influence not only in the present but in the future in the Middle East, through helping to establish an economic institution for the collective benefit of the Arab states and to provide perhaps an economic undergirding

-economics and politics are closely interlocked and intertwined-that would make for a new and happier basis for the relations not only among themselves but with the neighbouring states in the area. I say "among themselves". I am, of course, referring to the Arab nations; and I reiterate, not only to provide a new and happier basis for relations among themselves but also with the neighbouring states in the area.
We did not expect necessarily to have all these principles and objectives set forth in detail in the resolution. But what the Canadian delegation wanted was to find a starting point from which the objectives which I have endeavoured to describe here today could be pursued.
We were aware at the outset that we would have to rely on the ability and good offices of the secretary general to carry out both the letter and the spirit of the draft resolution. I will not attempt to recount in detail the long and intensive negotiations which went into the formulation of the seven power draft presented on August 18. We will look at the draft for a moment, but in a general way.
May I say that the draft was revised at least seven times as to context, which will indicate the care given to the particular views advanced by the various countries and groups of countries from time to time. At one time we believed we had a workable resolution, but then the attitude of the distinguished delegate from Jordan certainly surprised us and seemed to make it impossible for us to carry out the design which we had prepared for our resolution. Members of the committee may recall that the representative of Jordan in his statement to the general assembly appeared to reject any substantial role for the United Nations within Jordan, and he seemed to oppose on behalf of his government the presence of any United Nations representatives or any United Nations instrumentality within the territorial boundaries of his country with one possible exception, and one had to look through a magnifying glass to discern that exception. However, that roadblock was removed within 24 hours, when the Jordanian representative subsequently modified his position.
The essential elements of the resolution which we co-sponsored may be described in these words. It reaffirmed that all member states of the United Nations should refrain from action which might impair the freedom, independence or integrity of any state, which might cause civil strife or subvert the will of the people in any state; and it called upon all member states to observe these obligations especially in the area in question. It requested

the secretary general to make such practical arrangements after consultation with the governments concerned as were deemed necessary, and who could do this better than the secretary general? But he would have to do it on the spot.
May I refer for the moment to the U.S.S.R. resolution in this context. That resolution instructed the secretary general to go to Lebanon and Jordan for the purpose of supervising the withdrawal of troops, and nothing more. But our resolution, and I am not giving away any secrets when I say this, met with the entire satisfaction of the secretary general, although it imposed a great load upon him. In our final resolution the secretary general was to make such practical arrangements as he, in consultation with the governments concerned, might find would adequately serve to help in upholding the purposes and principles of the charter in relation to Lebanon and Jordan in the circumstances obtaining at the time in those countries.
In our resolution the question of withdrawal of the troops of the United States and the United Kingdom was not the subject of a specific provision, but in the preambular clause it was noted by the general assembly that declarations were addressed to the president of the general assembly in the letters written to him on August 18 by the representatives of the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom, in which they stated their willingness and desire to withdraw from Lebanon and Jordan respectively when the United Nations could take effective action to ensure, without regard to any regime or political party, stability and security in those countries.
Therefore the resolution sponsored by Norway, Canada and the five other countries did not, as I have said, expressly refer to withdrawals but implicitly made provision for the withdrawal of those forces by ensuring the mandate of the secretary general in the light of the United States and United Kingdom declarations as contained in the letters to which I have referred.
Finally, the seven power draft resolution -the Canada-Norway resolution-invited the secretary general to continue his studies with respect to the feasibility of establishing a stand-by United Nations peace force. Hon. members will recall that in this house during the earlier discussion on external affairs I expressed the view of the government in that regard, and we welcomed the insertion of a reference to a stand-by force.
In the seven power resolution there was also a statement to the effect that careful study would be given to the question of
Supply-External Affairs economic development in the countries of the Middle East, and it urged the Arab countries in explicit terms to study the representations made to them by the secretary general, which were endorsed by the President of the United States. It also requested the member states to co-operate fully in the carrying out of those studies and to assist in implementing the more positive and operative parts of the resolution. Finally, it invited the secretary general to report on his activities in trying to establish agreement among the Arab countries, the first of such reports being required to be made to the general assembly by not later than September 30, 1958.
While the seven power draft does conform to the principles and does meet the main objectives which had governed the Canadian approach, we were at the same time conscious of the shortcomings of that resolution. I endeavoured to make it clear, on behalf not only of Canada but of the other co-sponsors, in my statement in support of the resolution on August 19, 1958 that we were open to constructive suggestions with respect to its improvement. I stated particularly and at once that if it were to serve to secure great power and regional support we immediately conceded that the resolution could not be considered by any country or group of countries as perfect. In the atmosphere which prevailed on Tuesday of this week however, this resolution undoubtedly offered the only common denominator which would warrant broad support as a formula for the reconciliation of conflicting interests.
I referred once again at that stage to the negative aspect of the other resolution which had been tabled by the U.S.S.R. I stated on behalf of Canada that our resolution could serve as a point of departure to reconcile some of the conflicting interests, and expressed the hope that it would serve as a basis for discussion. It must be remembered that we had been negotiating for nearly a week and nothing positive had been put before the assembly in terms of a resolution. There was nothing of that kind on which to centre the attention of the general assembly other than the unsatisfactory and negative Soviet resolution.
There was a general and intense will- we could sense it-in the meetings of the general assemby to study anything which seemed to carry with it a plan for the future and not just a consideration of past events. This resolution gave a new focal point on Tuesday afternoon for the attention of the representatives of the nations who were in that hall on that occasion. In my statement

Supply-External Affairs in support of the resolution I frankly admitted-and I say this for the third time in words other than those I have already used-the shortcomings of the text which was presented in the resolution, but I say without any conceit and without any lack of modesty that I have reason to believe that these observations by Canada's delegation gave some hope for a common point of view coming out of the Arab ranks.
While the debate on the Canadian-Norwegian resolution was taking place on Wednesday there occurred what was indeed a dramatic and sudden reappraisal from the Arab ranks as a whole, though I would say it was not entirely a surprise to some of us. This led to the submission of a new draft resolution to the assembly by all ten Arab states, and this new development altered the whole basis on which the assembly's discussion had been proceeding and led rapidly, on Thursday evening, to a unanimous vote in favour of the Arab resolution.
Canada, and indeed all the sponsors, and the United States, the United Kingdom, France and other great powers immediately expressed their willingness and happiness to join with us, the co-sponsors of the Cana-dian-Norwegian resolution, in this new development. Therefore it was particularly fitting, in the light of the article in the charter regarding the regional settlement of disputes, that it should have been the Arabs themselves who came up with this formula and provided a starting point for working out a solution to the issues which have wracked the Arab world and on more than one occasion have threatened the peace of the whole world. I am satisfied that the resolution meets most of the main objectives which the co-sponsors of the seven power resolution had in mind and, in fact, it draws heavily on the letter and the spirit of the seven power resolution which we had cosponsored.
The Arab resolution contains three main elements. First, it reaffirms pledges already given by the Arab states that they will respect the systems of government established in the Arab states, and it calls on all members of the United Nations to conform with the principles of mutual respect for each other's integrity and non-interference in each other's affairs. This passage corresponds very closely in meaning to a similar passage of the seven-power resolution, but it expresses itself in terms which are more precise and which have a more particular relevance to the Arab and Asian world.
Second, the Arab resolution requests the secretary general to make such practical arrangements as would adequately help in upholding the purposes of the charter in

relation to Lebanon and Jordan in the present circumstances. These are the exact words of the seven power resolution. But the Arab resolution, unlike the Norwegian-Canadian formula on withdrawal, refers expressly and exclusively to withdrawal in the text of the resolution in the words "and thereby facilitate the early withdrawal of foreign troops from the two countries". This is a more direct formula for dealing with the crucial question of troop withdrawals than had been attempted in the seven power draft, and I would remind those who might wish to scrutinize too carefully the wording of this section-"and thereby facilitate the early withdrawal of foreign troops from the two countries"-that this formula was accepted willingly by the United States and by the United Kingdom.
May I quote to the committee the words of the secretary of state of the United States when he said they would heartily endorse the Arab resolution. These are his words:
The United States rejoices at the prospective assumption by the United Nations of the responsibility which we reluctantly assumed in an emergency and are eager to lay down.
He was followed immediately by the foreign secretary of the United Kingdom who stated, in effect, that the quicker the practical arrangements contemplated in the resolution could be made on a realistic basis, and here I quote, "the sooner it will be possible for us to withdraw our troops". The Lebanese and the Jordanians accepted this Arab resolution voluntarily, and the United Arab Republic pledged its earnest support for the fulfilment of the engagements which were set out in the resolution relating to this matter. I shall return to this point in a moment.
The third element in the resolution consists of a repetition of the provision in the seven power resolution inviting the secretary-general to continue his study with a view to possible assistance regarding an Arab development institution in the economic field, and to provide for this under amicable political arrangements.
I say frankly that there are two elements which I would like to have seen included in the Arab resolution. In my statement in the general assembly in support of the Cana-dian-Norwegian resolution I expressed the hope that there might be concluded an interlocking network of non-aggression agreements which would guarantee the independence and integrity of each and all of the Middle East states. I had in mind particularly the relations of the Arab states with their non-Arab neighbours.

That is not in the resolution. Members of this committee will be glad to hear, however, that from the remarks of some of the Arab leaders representing several of the Arab countries, made in support of their resolution, there is reason to hope that the cordial relations now established among the Arab states will be carried forward into their individual and collective relations with non-Arab states of the region. I look upon this as a result which can logically flow-and in some measure I expect it-from the activities which the United Nations through its secretary general will shortly be undertaking in this area.
The only feature of the seven-power resolution which failed to reappear in the Arab resolution was the reference to the United Nations peace force. That is not in the Arab resolution, whereas it was in our resolution. The text of that part of our resolution urged the secretary general to continue his studies with respect to the establishment of a peace force under the flag of the United Nations, and our purpose was to insist that this item be on the agenda of the thirteenth regular session of the general assembly which will begin on September 16.
I must admit, however, that in a resolution dealing with the Middle East situation it is hardly relevant to put in a paragraph that refers to a United Nations agency that could operate not only in the Middle East but throughout the world. I assure hon. gentlemen of this committee, however, that this omission need not be regarded as significant. It has been definitely stated that it will be on the agenda of the thirteenth regular session of the general assembly to which I have referred. To have pressed it at that time which I should like to have done on behalf of the Canadian delegation, would have revived widespread anxieties concerning the use of force for the settlement of international disputes, even though that force would operate under the United Nations flag. Bringing in that extraneous matter might have delayed a solution which holds out the promise of a settlement of disputes in relation to a particular area. But I say this very carefully, Mr. Chairman; it is a matter which deserves extremely careful study.
I should warn hon. members of the committee that I was conscious of a deep division of opinion within the assembly on this whole question of a stand-by force, a division that grew deeper and deeper during the succeeding days of the debate. There are many practical problems to be faced, not the least of which will be a decision as to who should be the final arbiter of when political or military circumstances would justify the use of a United Nations armed force. This was
Supply-External Affairs impressed upon me as the debate proceeded. But I say again it is now under study by officials of the United Nations, and there will be an opportunity to consider this more carefully in the meetings of the assembly that will begin next month. It is the armed aspect, the police aspect, of any proposal that would carry with it the suggestion that it should operate under the flag of the United Nations that worries many of the nations, small and great.
I look upon the Arab resolution as an evolution from and fulfilment of the seven power resolution with which Canada had been associated and one, moreover, which holds out better prospects for peace in the Middle East. Why? Because this formula and this resolution have come out of and were proposed by the Arab states themselves, and have won the unanimous support of all members of the United Nations including- and I would emphasize the importance of this-the approval of all the great powers. Mr. Gromyko expressed his intention to vote for the Arab resolution. He could not afford to do otherwise. He could not afford to vote against the Arab resolution; yet at the same time he fell back on propaganda and said, "This is really what we were after when we called for the emergency session of the general assembly". And so we have regional support, indeed a regional genesis, of the Arab resolution and we have the approval of the great powers. It was a unanimous decision. That is one of the principles we in the Canadian delegation had in mind when we began, in association with the Norwegians, to formulate a positive, creative and comprehensive resolution to present to the assembly.
The secretary general will be leaving for the Middle East on Monday afternoon. I saw him yesterday at a luncheon, and I could say that despite the inherent modesty of the man he has a certain self-confidence with respect to the success of the role that he will play in the next one or two weeks in the Middle East that will be of assistance to him in translating into practical and successful action the mandate he has received from the assembly. In accepting that mandate the secretary general is adding to the already heavy burden of responsibility which he has been called upon to assume in recent weeks, and none of us should underestimate the difficulties or delicacy of the new tasks we are asking him to assume. This is related to the solution of these problems.
The fact that his mandate is a broad one, leaving him wide discretion to consult and act on his own initiative as circumstances may require, is a tribute indeed to the confidence which the assembly, speaking

Supply-External Affairs with a unanimous voice, reposes in his skill and integrity. I am sure I reflect the opinion of hon. gentlemen on both sides of this house when I say Canada shares in that confidence in the secretary general. We must now hope most earnestly that the unanimity that was found in New York will be fully reflected in a co-operative attitude on the part of all states concerned in order that the United Nations, which the secretary general so wonderfully symbolizes, will be successful in bringing about a new era of peace and stability in the Middle East.
The unanimous adoption of the Arab resolution has been eminently satisfactory, but we now need deeds. I am not discounting my hope and indeed my expectation when I say that now is the time for deeds on the part of the states concerned to achieve a practical realization of that resolution. As the secretary general leaves New York on Monday afternoon I hope he will carry with him the thoughts and prayers of everyone who voted for that resolution.
I have referred to certain documents, resolutions and a declaration of intention, and for the benefit of hon. members of the committee I now propose to table them.
I have one further reference to the present international situation. I would say, Mr. Chairman, that there were two events yesterday in many ways of equal significance to the unanimous adoption by the emergency session of the general assembly of the Arab resolution. Those two events were the announcements on the part of the United States and the United Kingdom to the effect that they would be willing on October 31 to begin negotiations with the U.S.S.R. for an agreement that would provide for the cessation of nuclear tests. That would be a tripartite agreement or two bilateral agreements. I have expressed the hope that those agreements could be sealed under the United Nations.
I would remind the members of the committee, Mr. Chairman, that for several months the Canadian government has urged that such an agreement should be entered into, and that is why we urged the holding of a meeting of nuclear scientists at Geneva. We had hoped that in a cool atmosphere the scientists could find a satisfactory arrangement with respect to the detection of nuclear tests which would lead and indeed point the way to a political agreement in that regard. No doubt Canada, geographically speaking, must be used to station the equipment or instruments or whatever techniques have been suggested by the scientists at Geneva, but as the Prime Minister said yesterday Canada will be eager and willing to do her part in implementing such an agreement. That

is not disarmament, Mr. Chairman, but it points the way to disarmament. It prevents further armament, if you allow me to put it that way.
We had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that within the next few months it will be possible to convene a group of experts, such as those who met at Geneva in the last few months, who would study control techniques and control devices that would prevent the possibility of surprise attack. With that hope and the statements yesterday of the United States and the United Kingdom with respect to their proposals to the U.S.S.R. and the unanimous decision of the emergency general session of the general assembly, I feel better about the international situation than I have felt since I became a member of this house. But words will not be enough.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, my first words must be those of appreciation to the minister for the statement he has just given us, and words of welcome home to him from the United Nations special assembly which has just completed its work. I know how hard he must have been working there in recent days. I know what it involves in terms of preparation of public statements, and I know what it involves in terms of working behind the scenes. I suspect that last week-end he did a good deal of that, not only working behind the scenes but constructing scenes behind which to work, plugging loopholes in the scenes as he got them constructed, and trying to get people to work with him behind those scenes.
The result of all that activity was the introduction of a resolution in the assembly later in the week by the delegation of Norway, headed by a very distinguished man with whom I have had the privilege of working in the past. It must have been, I think, in a way disappointing to my hon. friend and to the other sponsor of that resolution that at the last moment, it was replaced by the Arab resolution which, to my way of thinking, was not as effective for the purpose for which it was designed as the seven power resolution but which for other reasons was perhaps inevitable. I shall have something to say about that later.
I know also that the minister in his work in the United Nations, indeed in his work in the department, has had the advantage of the services of a highly skilled body of experts. This, Mr. Chairman, gives me the opportunity to pay my tribute to the work of the Department of External Affairs both at home and abroad, and to the work of the officials in that department at all levels of official activity. I know from the records of the committee on external affairs-indeed, from

the meetings I attended-that the work of the department is continuing to expand. Important new offices are being opened and I am sure that is all necessary; and if it is necessary it is desirable. I do remember, however, that not so many years ago the expansion of the activities of the Department of External Affairs in the opening of embassies abroad was greeted in some quarters in this house with some hesitation as unnecessary extravagance.
I am quite certain that no governmental work is more important to the people of Canada than that of the Department of External Affairs, dealing as it does with our relations with other countries in this difficult and critical time in the world's history. I know we are very fortunate in this country -and I am sure the minister will agree with me-in having a foreign service second to none in the world to help him in that work.
We have built up over the years in that department a great body of professional help. One reason, I may suggest, why the department does operate effectively as I think it does, is that it has been made clear from the beginning that the headship of every post in the foreign service of Canada from the most junior, from the least important mission abroad to the most important mission, is open to any member of that service who may qualify for that position; and that there has been no interference of any kind in the work and in the legitimate ambitions of the members of the service. I hope, and I know, it will continue that way.
The minister quite rightly has confined his remarks largely to the work of the special assembly and I shall have something to say about that. I should also like, however, to take advantage of this opportunity-it may be the last opportunity that we shall have-to discuss some other aspects of external affairs and deal with one or two other matters. But first, Mr. Chairman, let me deal with the work of the special assembly which the minister has covered.
I continue to believe, and I suspect that the minister would not be in too violent disagreement with me, that the best method of dealing with what has been called the Middle East crisis, which arose out of events in Iraq, Lebanon and later in Jordan, would have been a small, informal, confidential conference at the summit, to use the expression we have come to use now; a conference which in its representation would consist of those most concerned, a conference which might possibly have elaborated policies which would have prevented this kind of thing and which would prevent a recurrence of it in the future. When I have advocated that machinery for dealing with this crisis I have
Supply-External Affairs not had in mind, of course, that this involved in any way the by-passing of the states most directly concerned, the Arab states and Israel, or the by-passing of smaller states generally. Nevertheless it will not be possible at the United Nations or elsewhere to work out policies which will result in stability, progress and peace in this part of the world unless the major powers can get together and try to co-ordinate their policies in that region.
I thought and I continue to think that the head of the Soviet government, Mr. Khrushchev, gave us a remarkably good opportunity to make or at least attempt to make some progress in that direction when he invited the heads of the governments of the United Kingdom, the United States, France and India and the secretary general of the United Nations to join him in that kind of conference. I still think this invitation should have been seized upon as preliminary to the kind of discussion that would later take place in the general assembly of the United Nations. As we all know, that invitation bogged down through a complicated exchange of diplomatic notes, a maze of correspondence, and eventually Mr. Khrushchev escaped from what I believe was an increasingly embarrassing situation for him, after he had second thoughts as to the kind of meeting he had invited, consisting of representatives of the three western powers, a friendly member of the commonwealth and the secretary general, by switching the invitation, because of the delay on all sides in doing anything about his first proposal, to a meeting of the general assembly which as the minister pointed out, had already been put forward from other quarters.
The minister said in his observations that perhaps Mr. Khrushchev thought he might have something to gain from transferring the discussions to the general assembly. I am inclined to think that Mr. Khrushchev might not have had, on the other hand, a completely free hand in his action at that time because it took place, as the committee knows, shortly after the visit he paid to Mao Tse-tung in Peking. It might well have been that at that meeting the Chinese communist leader, recognizing that Mohammed could not go to the mountain and the mountain could not go to Mohammed, decided that there would not be a mountain at all so instead of a summit conference, an emergency meeting of the 81-nation general assembly was held, on which the minister has reported. The London Economist, a magazine from which some of us often quote and which a good many of us read, had this to say in the first paragraph of its leading article on August 9:
The summit seems to have vanished like a Middle East mirage. Instead of scaling exhilarating peaks

Supply-External Affairs the summiteers face the prospect of plodding through the vast and dusty expanse of the 81-member United Nations assembly. To come down to earth so abruptly and land in this field full of folk is enough to make anybody feel flat; and it is hardly surprising that all concerned are scouring the plain for scapegoats.
As the minister has pointed out, the results of this meeting on the plain were better than that. Indeed some of the things that many people, myself among them I confess, feared from a meeting of this kind, that it would degenerate into an exchange of propaganda insults and be completely negative in character, did not, thank goodness, materialize. Perhaps we owe a debt of gratitude for that result especially to the President of the United States, who in his opening statement set the tone of the meeting on a pretty high level. Therefore the results, although they may not have been all that we hoped for or, indeed, that the minister and the government hoped for, were certainly not those which might have been feared.
It is perfectly true that as a result of the emergency session of the United Nations assembly the sense of crisis which we had a few weeks ago has diminished. In my view, however, it is also true that the underlying problems which served to produce the crisis have not been dealt with. What the United Nations assembly has done is give the governments concerned another chance to deal with these problems.
The minister, speaking from the United Nations in New York, was quoted in the press last night-I think he used the same expression this morning-as saying that the Arab resolution is regarded as eminently satisfactory, and according to this report he went on to say, although I do not think he went so far this morning:
All delegations will feel a sense of gratification at the respect for the charter that has been demonstrated-
I think we can all subscribe to that.
-and at the happier era now lying before the Arab states in their mutual relations.
I hope he is right. If the wording of the Arab resolution is carried into action, and the minister was careful to make this condition, then perhaps we can look forward to that result. I am quoting this statement because I have the text of it and perhaps will be more accurate in my references to it than I would be if I were to try to remember the exact words the minister used this morning. The minister went on to say:
All of these-
Certain considerations he had mentioned.
-are adequately met by the Arab resolution. It provides a satisfactory code to govern the mutual relations of the Arab states.

From my reading of the resolution I think that is correct, but I would point out to the minister, undoubtedly he does not need to have it pointed out to him, that this satisfactory code which is embodied in the resolution, at least in paragraph (a) of the resolution, the code to which he was referring, is taken from a previous pact setting up the league of Arab states and in its second paragraph, if I am not wrong, from the Bandung resolution. Therefore this particular code which is now embodied in the resolution in this form has already been in existence for some years. So we can only hope that putting it in a United Nations resolution which has been accepted by every member of the United Nations will in fact provide a better opportunity for using it to govern relations between these states than has been the case in recent years. To that extent I think we can all take a good deal of satisfaction from the resolution.
But, Mr. Chairman, the fact remains, as I said a moment ago, that the underlying problems which brought about this trouble in the first place are still there. The United Nations activitiy in this regard has been beneficial. There is no doubt about that. But I am not sure that the United Nations assembly on this occasion is not in about the same situation as it was a couple of years ago over Suez, when we were I think able down there to resolve an immediate crisis but did not take advantage of the atmosphere of crisis to get down to the problems that brought about the crisis.
And so we find ourselves in the same situation on this occasion. This Arab resolution was essential perhaps to resolve the immediate crisis, and perhaps it has done that. However, it will not be successful unless these basic problems are dealt with. As the minister and other members of the government must know, in these international matters once the immediate crisis passes we are inclined to forget the situation which brought it about, and to do nothing about it until we have another crisis. I hope that will not happen on this occasion.


John George Diefenbaker: What the hon. gentleman has been saying is very interesting. Would the hon. gentleman say what these basic issues are? I am very much interested in hearing whether they are a continuation of those that existed two years ago. I have been following the hon. member very closely.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; in a sense I think they are a continuation of those which were in existence two years ago. Some of them perhaps are new, but certainly some of them were in existence then. I will mention one or two of them. The first one that occurs to

my mind is the inability-and I make no criticism of anybody or any country in this regard-the demonstrated inability in this crisis to take any action that would improve relations between Israel and her Arab neighbours. It does not seem that we are going to escape from this dangerous situation in the Middle East unless something is done about that matter. When I say that, I have no illusions about the difficulty in that regard.


Sidney Earle Smith: May I
ask the hon. member a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Sidney Earle Smith: Did the
hon. member appreciate my reference to that particular problem?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, I did appreciate it. As I said, in making these particular references and giving these illustrations I am not attempting to be critical in any way of what the government did or did not do at the United Nations assembly. I am quite aware of the fact that this matter could not have been dealt with at this special assembly at the United Nations, and I am quite aware of the fact that the minister referred to it. I read his speech in regard to that matter. He made reference to it in a way which I thought was helpful.
Nevertheless, until the international assembly and the governments most concerned are able to do something in a constructive and practical way about this matter, I am afraid we shall continue to move from critical situation to critical situation. While this is not easy of accomplishment, I hope that perhaps we shall soon be able to make progress in this particular issue of the relations between Israel and its neighbours because, as I say, it is rather basic to the whole situation out there.
Then there is the economic situation as mentioned in this Arab resolution. It was mentioned more effectively, I think, in the seven power resolution. I do not see how the nations of the Middle East area can really work together on these economic matters which are so important unless some recognition is given to the position of Israel in this regard. So here is another example of the interrelationship of politics and economics.
Then there is the question-the minister mentioned it this morning, and he certainly tried to do something about it in New York- of United Nations machinery. I am not now thinking of economic machinery, but of United Nations political machinery. He does not like the word "police" and I know why. It arouses the wrong kind of feeling in certain quarters. My reference is to the recognition
Supply-External Affairs of the importance of some United Nations political machinery which will be available to be moved into areas of difficulty. The minister pointed out that this is a complicated and difficult business, and that there are nations represented at New York who are worried about the principle involved, namely that of putting force behind the United Nations. No doubt some smaller countries are afraid that, if that is done, the force could be used against their interests.
But while there are difficulties, and I appreciate them, surely they are not of a kind to prevent us from trying to bring about a situation in which we shall have some permanent stand-by United Nations police machinery. I am not thinking of a United Nations force of the type we discussed in 1945, 1946 and 1947, in which would be included contingents from the great powers. That is an impossibility in the present situation. I am not even thinking about Trygve Lie's United Nations police force, his legion or whatever he called it. I am thinking now-and I have mentioned this many times previously, as have other members-of the desirability of setting up a central headquarters in New York of the kind which we were obliged to set up so quickly for the Suez operation, and the desirability of governments making available on request to that headquarters of the United Nations a force which might be required for a particular operation.
The minister said that one of the difficulties was as to who would make the decision, and how it would be made, which would bring this kind of machinery into action. Of course that is a difficulty. But I have in mind only having those forces available when that decision has been made. We have now had two or three illustrations of how it can be done, and also some of the jurisdictional problems of a force of this kind, and of the agency governing the force, have been worked out in practice. It is now fairly clear that you cannot use a force of this kind for any purpose whatever except by agreement at the United Nations and by agreement with the country in which the force operates. Although it has difficulties and although it has handicaps, it is an important thing to do. The minister himself has underlined the importance of this.
I was glad to hear him say that while in this Arab resolution there is no reference to a force of that kind, although there was a reference in the seven power resolution, nevertheless this matter is to come up for consideration at the next assembly. That will be meeting in two or three weeks. I would hope that this matter will be considered as one of the priority items on the

Supply-External Affairs agenda, and that we shall be able to make some effective progress in that regard. The fact that it is not mentioned in the Arab resolution is a little disappointing, in my opinion, but perhaps not too important in view of the fact that it will be discussed.
The Arab resolution, which I have before me and which I think is not as good a resolution as the seven power one but which I recognize had a certain advantage in the fact that it obtained unanimous support, which I doubt the seven power resolution would have obtained, does, as the minister pointed out, lay down this pledge of non-interference. This pledge has already been given previously but it is good to have it repeated in a resolution which was passed unanimously by the United Nations assembly.
It is a strange clause, if I may say so, to an outsider who has not been concei'ned with drafting it. I know what goes on down there in the drafting of resolutions, and the changes that have to be made until the final resolution sometimes is understandable only to those who have been in from the beginning. The first operative paragraph of this resolution, or the part of it which I shall read, is as follows: The United Nations assembly-
-welcomes the renewed assurances given by the Arab states to observe the provisions of article 8 of the pact of the league of Arab states that "each member state shall respect the systems of government established in the other member states and regard them as exclusive concerns of those states" and that-
And here is another quotation.
-each shall pledge to abstain from any action calculated to change established systems of government.
The normal and obvious interpretation of this is that they pledge themselves not to change even their own form of government, but I take it that is not what is meant by the resolution. Then in paragraph 2 there is a very interesting phrase which could be used to facilitate the development of the economies of the Arab states and to facilitate what surely is essential if there is to be stability in that area in some form namely the equalization of resources and income and wealth among the various states. There is a reference in this agreement which might be used for that purpose, and that is the one calling upon all Arab states to act strictly in accordance with the principle-I am leaving out some of the words-"of equal and mutual benefit." If that were to be put into effect among the Arab states some very important changes indeed would be required.
In the Arab resolution, as the minister pointed out-and this is in contrast to the seven power resolution-there is in a rather complicated and ambiguous fashion a reference to early withdrawal of foreign troops [Mr. Pearson.?

from the two countries, Lebanon and Jordan. No one should take exception to that, because that is the declared policy of the two countries whose forces are presently stationed in these countries.
I think we can hope that this withdrawal will be brought about as quickly as possible. I wish to return, however, to the desirability of pressing ahead in the United Nations to set up the machinery so that if we face this kind of problem in the future, or something similar to it, that there will be something upon which the United Nations can count for quick action.
The President of the United States had something to say on this matter at a press conference two days ago. I was a little discouraged, perhaps unnecessarily so, by his remarks when he was questioned about it. He is reported in the New York Times of August 21, 1958 as saying the following with reference to a United Nations stand-by force:
-it is one of those things that I think has to develop and to come about with the growth of common sense and a little bit greater spirit of tolerance among nations.
I think it is a very fine thing. I think it is one of those things that probably will not be done exactly at this moment.
I agree that it will not be done exactly at this moment, but I do hope it will not be delayed too long, because I think it would serve a very useful purpose, if only as a foundation for the effort to put force behind our law and establish a more effective way of dealing with these matters in the future.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. member permit a question? Having regard to his experience in 1945, 1946 and 1947, to which he made reference, I am sure he will agree that at that time we felt there should be set up some international force. Would he consider it amiss if I ask him what actually happened to deny the achievement of those hopes which were so apparent at San Francisco? What was the reason no action was taken?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I attended the meeting of the committee at San Francisco dealing with this aspect of the charter. When the charter was drafted at San Francisco it was felt that the countries having the greatest responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security were the permanent members of the security council. Any force behind the charter would therefore have to come primarily, though not exclusively, from those permanent members of the security council. If they could agree on the development of an international peace force of this type, with British, United States, Russian and Chinese forces, there would indeed be something which could keep the peace.

Such a force, however, could not go into operation without a decision of the security council, not the assembly. As each security council member had a veto, no decision could be taken unless they were all in agreement. It became clear that they would not be in agreement shortly after the charter was drafted and therefore the machinery which was set up, as I said in the last debate in this house on external affairs, is still formally in existence; the military committee of representatives of the permanent members of the council, this machinery was never able to operate, not even to the point where a plan could be produced for an international police force. There was a Russian member on that committee.
As the futility of the security council as an agency for putting force behind the law became more and more apparent, we had to fall back upon the assembly, where the veto does not operate. As hon. members know, recognition of the necessity for that change was given when we passed the uniting for peace resolution in the assembly, in 1950, and any action that has been taken since that time in this field has been under that resolution through the general assembly, where only a two thirds majority is required. Action is therefore limited, because without the cooperation of the great powers it is idle to talk about any large force to maintain peace.
No United Nations police force of the kind I have mentioned could do that, of course. But what it could do, this is something which has been recommended many times in this house by many hon. members, including the Prime Minister himself, is move into disputed areas under the flag of the United Nations, to represent the international communities in those areas of disturbance, those areas which are uneasy under an armistice settlement agreed upon by governments, in order to make sure that those settlements are observed and that the disturbances do not erupt into violence.
This has been done in the Suez area during the last year and a half. The United Nations observers are not doing the same kind of work, though not working under the same circumstances as outlined above but those observers have been effective in another way in Lebanon. The same kind of thing is being done, though again in a different way, on the borders between Pakistan, and India and though not immediately under the United Nations but still representing the international community, a very effective job has been done in Indo-China.
This, however, is not the kind of thing we had in mind at San Francisco when, hoping that the great powers would work
Supply-External Affairs together to prevent any outbreak such as that through which we had just passed during world war II, we thought at least we would have enough force behind a United Nations organization not only to prevent small skirmishes growing, if there were small skirmishes, but also to enforce law by an overwhelming force which would be at the disposal of the international organization. As has been said by a justice of the United States supreme court, this is still a gleaming dream of peace, but it is not even within the bounds of realization at the present time. So we have to fall back on the kind of thing the minister is talking about and which is going to be discussed at the next assembly, which I hope will result in some progress.
There was one other aspect of the assembly deliberations which caused some uneasiness to me which was perhaps also felt by other hon. members of this house. That was the tendency in certain quarters to assume that it is the function, the duty and the obligation of the United Nations to do something about indirect aggression, and that if we could not deal with indirect aggression we would not be able to deal with direct aggression. Indeed, we are not so likely to have direct aggression but are much more likely to have trouble arising out of indirect aggression,-the interference of one country in the affairs of another country in order to bring about a change in the status of that country.
I know that we all realize that this is the way the communists operate, and it is quite likely that we may not be faced in the near future with the dropping of hydrogen bombs but with infiltrations across borders, economic, political and social. It is important to try to do something about this, but I think we are on pretty dubious ground when we try to have discussions of the kind we had in the United Nations special assembly in this crisis in the Middle East on the necessity of dealing with indirect aggression through some form of the United Nations machinery. We might as well be frank about it; every great power does use its influence across the borders of other countries to bring about in those countries a state of affairs which will make those other countries more friendly to the power whose aim it is to aggress in this indirect way.
Russia and other communist states make this a major instrument of their national policy; there is no doubt about that. But when we accuse them-and we have every right to accuse them-and when we ask the United Nations to do something about that kind of aggression, we invite the kind of retaliation which we undoubtedly will get in the United Nations assembly. Nobody is

Supply-External Affairs guiltless, and I do not think it will get us anywhere in terms of United Nations resolutions.
Yesterday I read in the press that the United States congress had appropriated another $10 million for the "Voice of America" to increase the effectiveness of its broadcasts to other countries, perhaps to the Arab world and behind the iron curtain. No doubt this is desirable if we can get to the people of those countries, but the governments of those countries perhaps consider it, quite unjustly from our point of view, a form of indirect aggression. Therefore any effort to make too much out of this at the United Nations merely involves charges and countercharges and does not get us very far.
There are two or three other matters I want to discuss, and perhaps the minister will be able to deal with some of the points I venture to raise. The first is the situation with regard to NATO. The United Nations has at the present time once again shown its indisputable value under the leadership of its secretary general. I was going to say "under the leadership of its indispensable secretary general". We have learned over the last two or three years that there are no indispensable men, but if there is any man who is near to being indispensable, however, it is, I suggest, the secretary general of the United Nations; and the value of his leadership has been well demonstrated. However, we must not forget that another of our defences-and I am talking now of military, not political, defence-is the North Atlantic treaty organization. Anything which weakens that organization weakens our defences until we can do away with that organization entirely and bring defence under the United Nations, and we are a long way from that.
All members of this committee are, I am sure, worried about disputes within the North Atlantic treaty organization. The minister said on another occasion, and I was glad to hear him say it, that political consultation within the NATO council was closer and more constructive today than perhaps it had ever been before. That is all to the good, and there is a blueprint in the report of a NATO committee which does, I think, lay down the lines on which such consultation can be effected. We have to develop this kind of consultation, both political and economic, or NATO will not ultimately survive.
But against these more hopeful signs of the development of consultation must be set the fact that within the NATO circle there are dangerous disputes between NATO members.
I note one major dispute, over Cyprus, in which three members of NATO are involved, perhaps more than three. The Prime Minister


of the United Kingdom has recently been making imaginative efforts to bring this conflict to an end. It is a little depressing to realize that there are so many British troops required in Cyprus and that this might be one of the reasons, though not the only one, of course, why Britain has had to cut down her forces on the continent of Europe.
That is one dispute. Another concerns Algeria. Algeria is geographically inside the NATO area and an attack on Algeria, we might remind ourselves, is an attack on Canada within the terms of the North Atlantic pact. Therefore it is a matter of immediate concern that we should do all we can to help find a solution to this problem. I think all members of this committee must have been struck by the imaginative, constructive, and liberal-spelled with a small "1"-approach to this question by General De Gaulle. Let us hope he will be successful in solving this dispute. It is not a NATO dispute in the sense that two NATO countries are involved, but it is to the extent that one country which is an important member of NATO has had to bring most of its troops from the NATO line and send them across the Mediterranean. It is a dispute which involves NATO in that sense.
Then unfortunately there has developed in the last few weeks a dispute between two NATO countries, Iceland and the United Kingdom, which cannot do anything but cause distress among other NATO members and, indeed, in other countries as well. The origin of this affair arises out of a decision of the Icelandic government made under an Icelandic act to assert control of the continental shelf, something which was agreed to at the recent Geneva conference in so far as the exploitation of the resources under the sea is concerned.
Operating under this act the government of Iceland has extended its territorial waters to 12 miles from shore and in doing so has come into conflict-according to the reports, bitter conflict-with the United Kingdom, which historically has claimed fishing and other rights on the high seas up to the three mile limit. The press tells us that a United Kingdom trawler fleet is going off in a few days to its fishing grounds which are now, under Icelandic law, within the territorial waters of Iceland, and we also read in the press that if there should be any interference with the British trawlers the necessary naval protection will be given to the British vessels. That is unhappy reading for any member of the North Atlantic treaty organization which values its relationships with both Britain and Iceland.

As is inevitable in a situation of this kind, the Soviet union has rushed in to exploit it. I read in the press the other day that not only have they showed their sympathy with Iceland in this dispute, but that they have offered Soviet credits to help build an Icelandic trawler fleet which would be of great help to Iceland in the same way as the Soviet offer to help buy the fishing output of Iceland has been of help to her.
It would be a tragedy, I think, if anything developed which would force Iceland out of NATO, and we must all hope that nothing of that kind will happen. I appreciate the British difficulties in this regard, because this is a very important matter to them in view of the value of this fishing ground, but the situation has been made even more difficult for Britain by the fact that the Soviet union has for many years-perhaps going back as far as the establishment of the Soviet state; I am not sure-maintained its claim to a 12-mile territorial water zone. There has been no effort on anybody's part, as far as I know, to challenge that claim. Hon. members will therefore be able to appreciate the difficulty in which the United Kingdom government is placed.
I am suggesting, before we call it one o'clock, that because of our very close relationship to Iceland-I have been there myself and talked to the government and the people, and I think it is true to say that there is no country with which Iceland has a closer relationship than Canada

having regard to that fact and, perhaps, to our even closer relationship with the mother country, perhaps this is a situation in which Canada could offer her good offices for mediation which could be helpful in this case and prevent this dispute coming to a clash.
We must all hope that nothing like this will happen, but some of the reports in the last few days have indicated that if something is not done we may be in serious trouble, not only inside NATO but in trouble which would affect the whole north Atlantic defense position of which Iceland is a key base.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee met at 2.30 p.m.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, before lunch in commenting on the minister's interesting statement of this morning I had attempted to deal with some aspects of the crisis in the Middle East and had also ventured to bring to the attention of the committee an
Supply-External Affairs unfortunate and what might be a damaging dispute between the United Kingdom on the one hand and Iceland on the other concerning the jurisdiction of Iceland over the 12-mile limit which she now claims and which conflicts with the United Kingdom law and practice in this field of territorial waters. I expressed the hope and I repeat it now that perhaps the good offices of the Canadian government might be useful in this matter in preventing this dispute which has been a long standing one and which came up in NATO over two years ago from deteriorating, and which will help to prove the reports of impending trouble to be without validity.
I was going on from there to discuss what is probably as important an aspect of our foreign relations as there is, our relations with the United States of America. One element in that relationship is our desire to co-operate with the United States in all aspects of foreign policy including policy in the Far East. I mention this matter which before one o'clock I did not intend to raise because of reports which have come over the air during the luncheon recess and which the minister may have heard to the effect that thousands of shells are being thrown on the little island of Quemoy and Matsu off the China mainland by the Chinese communist forces. There is some anxiety that this might be the prelude to an attack on these two islands which are now occupied by the government of Chiang Kai-shek and which are so close to the mainland of China which is under communist control that they have for several years constituted a threat to peace and stability in that area.
The secretary of state of the United States is reported as having said this morning that if this action should be the prelude to an effort on the part of the Chinese communist government to take and occupy these two offshore islands that would create a dangerous situation and, if I may quote from the words attributed to him, "Any such action." said Mr. Dulles, "would be a threat to the peace of the area." Indeed, this is the attitude that was adopted by the United States and expressed as such some time ago when there was a threat to these islands. I shall not quote his exact words but certainly the burden of his remarks at that time which are reported to have been repeated today was that those concerned could not count on the United States remaining aloof from an attack.
This does involve problems of peace and security in the area with which we are all concerned. I can only express the hope that no such development as has been indicated in this report will occur but if it does I think we in this house should know where the Canadian government stands in the matter.

Supply-External Affairs Perhaps, as an indication of the position adopted by the previous government and which I should like to confirm at this time as being the position which I think should be adopted in this matter by Canada, I may quote from Hansard of Tuesday, March 29, 1955, where at page 2477 the then private hon. member for Prince Albert who is now the Prime Minister asked me in my capacity as the then secretary of state for external affairs a question in these terms:
Is there any foundation for the general statement that is being made in the press of the United States that an imminent attack on Quemoy and Matsu by Red China is anticipated? Would the minister say whether he has any information that would confirm or deny this statement. Would he also give a general resume of the present situation relative to those two islands.
I replied to that question as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I have seen the reports to which my hon. friend refers and I have no information from any official quarter which would confirm them or that an attack on these islands is imminent.
I went on to say:
Of course, in the present situation it always remains a dangerous possibility.
Perhaps I may interpolate that it seems to remain a dangerous possibility at this moment. I then concluded my reply by saying as an indication of the policy we had adopted at that time and on which the minister might care to comment during the course of this debate:
As far as our policy-
That is, Canadian policy.
-in respect to this matter is concerned it has already been made clear, and I do not think I need repeat it here, that if an attack were made on these offshore islands it would not involve the intervention of the Canadian government.
That seems to me to be the right position for Canada to adopt in respect of this matter. In that sense it separates us to an important extent from the position that has been adopted and, according to reports, repeated by the secretary of state of the United States today. In so far as this represents a difference in policy between the two countries that is unfortunate. I think all hon. members of this committee and all Canadians desire to keep to a minimum these differences between the two countries that share this continent but there are times when we may have to differ with the United States and in respect of the attitude toward these offshore islands which has once again been very forcefully brought to our attention this seems to me to be such an occasion.
This brings me then to the more general subject of our relations with the United States. As I have said, Mr. Chairman, those relationships should be as close and friendly as possible. We should consider it a privilege

in this country as they should across the line to co-operate with each other in the economic defence and all other phases of foreign policy. I said in this house as recently as July 18, and I repeat it now because it is something that has been misinterpreted and I believe misconstrued, that there may not be between our two countries that close and continuous co-operation-and, yes, I might use the word "unity"-on defence matters which is desirable if we have economic conflicts.
That is why we must all be happy for reasons other than trade to take part in steps which may be taken to remove economic conflicts between the two countries, because those two things, economic conflict and defence co-operation, do not go together.
In this relationship between our two countries, any Canadian government, any Canadian representative, has to stand up for the rights of his own country as he conceives them, always having regard to what he can do to maintain unity inside the coalition and unity inside the continent which we all accept as essential. But that does not mean-in fact, it should never mean-that we should indulge in unfair criticism, unnecessary criticism, of the policies of our neighbour, that we should show an oversensitiveness, that we should go in for what you might call pinpricks, disturbing by small talk which sometimes causes the trouble that small talk can cause, disturbing the good relationship, the good day-to-day relationship which is essential.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, as an important aspect of our foreign policy I want to say something about the relationship between our two countries as I conceive it in the Arctic. A few days ago in this house one of the members on the treasury benches had some observations to make on this subject, in which he expressed chagrin and a sense of shame at some of the difficulties that Canadians were encountering, including members of the Canadian government, in their own north country, arising out of the fact there are United States facilities and installations in that part of Canada, which are there as a result of an agreement between Canada and the United States. When the Prime Minister cleared this matter up on August 16, he said, as reported at page 3652 of Hansard:
I have felt that in the northern defences of Canada there were in existence situations that could conceivably derogate from Canada's sovereignty.
Mr. Chairman, it is important that there should not be situations which derogate from our sovereignty in this part of Canada, and

if those situations arise out of the arrangements which were made between the Canadian and the United States governments for the construction of defence facilities in that part of Canada, more particularly the D.E.W. line, then I think it is desirable, and I think it will be wise, to put on the record in Hansard the agreement, or some parts of the agreement reached between our two countries for the establishment of the distant early warning system. This agreement was effected by an exchange of notes, which were signed at Washington on May 5, 1955. Under that agreement, Mr. Chairman-and it would certainly be unfortunate if it were otherwise-it seems to me that there is complete and necessary protection of the Canadian sovereign rights in the areas which are concerned, namely the Artie areas, where the D.E.W. line would be established. In the annex to the exchange of notes the arrangements are given which I think are pretty adequate for the protection of those rights of sovereignty. For instance, in paragraph 1 of the annex under the heading of "Sites" there is this:
Canada will acquire and retain title to all lands required for the system.
That is the D.E.W. line system.
Canada grants and assures the United States, without charge, such rights as access, use, and occupancy as may be required for the construction, equipment and operation of the system.
Then, section 6, under the heading "Canadian law", we find this:
Nothing in this agreement shall derogate from the application of Canadian law in Canada, provided that,-
And this is a proviso which I think in all fairness 1 should read:
-if in unusual circumstances its application may lead to unreasonable delay or difficulty in construction or operation, the United States authorities concerned may request the assistance of Canadian authorities in seeking appropriate alleviation.
Then section 7, under "Operation and Manning" we have these words:
It is understood that, in any event, Canada reserves the right, on reasonable notice, to take over the operation and manning of any or all of the installations.
Then, again, in section 15, under the heading "Use of Airstrips" we have this:
The airstrip shall be available for use by the R.C.A.F. as required. The airstrip shall also be available for use by Canadian civil air carriers operating into or through the area, whenever such use would not conflict with military requirements,-
This is a reasonable condition. I continue:
-and subject to the understanding that the United States air force will not be responsible for the provision of accommodation, fuel, or servicing facilities of any kind. Proposals and arrangements for such use of U.S.A.F.-operated airstrips by Canadian
Supply-External Affairs
air carriers shall be submitted to the R.C.A.F., which shall consult the U.S.A.F. before granting any such permission.
Then, section 16 under "Landing Facilities":
Landing facilities at any of the stations on tidewater will be available for use by Canadian government ships and ships employed on Canadian government business.
Then, under section 20, "Status of Forces" there is this:
The "Agreement between the parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the status of their forces", signed in London on June 19, 1951, shall apply.
That means, in a word, that the rights under that agreement, under that NATO agreement, to which the United States forces are entitled, are available to any Canadian forces that might be on United States territory. Then, section 21 has this to say:
Supplementary arrangements or administrative agreements between authorized agencies of the two governments may be made from time to time for the purpose of carrying out the intent of this agreement.
Mr. Chairman, this agreement which was signed in 1955 does seem to me to protect Canadian rights and Canadian sovereignty in that area. When the Prime Minister indicated that there had been, as he thought, some derogation from that sovereignty, I asked him whether he would table the regulations made under this agreement which, according to the Prime Minister, cleared up those difficulties and were undoubtedly made under section 21, which I think-


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman also asked for more than that.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I asked for all the regulations based on the agreement.


John George Diefenbaker: And, I may say the compilation is being undertaken. As a matter of fact, there are a great many, and my understanding is, that it will take some time. I think it will be ready in three or four days but the file includes a lengthy series of regulations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps I can help the Prime Minister by telling him that the regulations that seem to me to be of the most importance in respect of this matter are those which were made since the time that he and his government took over, because the Prime Minister did say-and I quoted his words from Hansard-that when he took office he found an unsatisfactory situation. Therefore it would be of great interest to the committee to ascertain the regulations which were passed since that time to clear up this situation. In any event, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the agreement in question does protect our sovereign rights and I also point out the fact, of which the Prime Minister

Supply-External Affairs undoutbedly is aware, that under the exchange of notes to which this document was attached, the Canadian government has full authority at any time to take over, to operate, to man and to maintain the D.E.W. line.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that if this type of operation in the north is going to cause the kind of suspicion we sometimes see in the press and in other places, if there is going to be this kind of difficulty, if we feel, and I think it is a reasonable feeling, that it is necessary for us to increase our occupation of our own northern territories in order to establish beyond question our title to those territories by right of occupation, then perhaps the time is coming when Canada should exercise its option and take over, man and maintain the D.E.W. line, the weather stations and other Arctic installations now either jointly operated and maintained or operated and maintained by the United States.
There is now one reason and there may be more than one reason for so doing. Certainly there was some doubt when these installations were considered in the first place whether this would be a desirable thing for Canada to do. The construction of them involved great expense and it also involved the use of skilled manpower which perhaps was not available in Canada at that time. But if these difficulties have now been overcome, and they certainly have been so far as construction is concerned because construction is completed, and if there is now sufficient skilled manpower to take over the operation then I think serious consideration should be given to that action. I feel quite certain that the United States would welcome such action on our part. As I said in the last debate on external affairs, perhaps it is now at least worthy of consideration whether some of our obligations outside of Canada might not be reduced if that is necessary to make it possible for us to take over all these Arctic operations which are not only so important for defence but have a real value in the opening up and developing of the country for other purposes.
There is only one other matter I want to mention and I do so because the minister quite rightly had something to say about it this morning. I refer to the recent announcement, I think made yesterday, by the United States and the United Kingdom that under certain circumstances-there were some conditions attached to it-they would be willing to suspend nuclear tests for a period of one year. As I ventured to say in the house yesterday and as the Prime Minister emphasized in his statement, this was an important decision and it was an encouraging one as far as it went. It remains now, as the minister pointed out this morning, for those countries

which have in the past made these nuclear tests to get together as a result of the discussions now visualized in the United States and British statements, and try to come to some international agreement under the auspices of the United Nations, I would hope, which would formalize this important move on their part and perhaps extend it in terms of time and countries.
It is not only important that the three nuclear powers do this now but surely it is also important, as I have said before, that other powers which do not now manufacture nuclear weapons should associate themselves with this kind of agreement so that they will not in the future become manufacturers of nuclear weapons. Possibly at least the first step in that direction can be taken at the forthcoming assembly of the United Nations so that we not only can put an end to nuclear tests on the part of the powers which possess nuclear weapons of mass destruction but also can prevent the extension of the manufacture of these weapons to countries which do not now possess them.
When I advocate that I do not want to be misunderstood because I have at the same time suggested, and I repeat the statement now, that while the abolition not only of such tests but of nuclear weapons themselves is the first objective we should all seek there is a very great difference indeed between a megaton hydrogen bomb and a warhead for a ground to air defensive missile such as the Bomarc which cannot be used for any offensive purpose but which might be invaluable for defence against aggression. As soon as the warhead of the Bomarc is equipped with a nuclear tip it becomes a nuclear weapon, and as long as these tactical weapons for defence are used-I do not think this is inconsistent with the position I have taken regarding the abolition of nuclear tests- I think it is not a tolerable proposition that a Canadian squadron serving with a United States squadron on Canadian soil, perhaps under joint United States-Canadian command, should be armed in the future with Bomarc weapons without nuclear warheads while at the same time the United States squadron operating from the same field should have them.
That is why I ventured to ask the minister previously, and perhaps he may have something to say about this when he replies, whether any negotiations are under way in Washington now to put Canada on exactly the same basis of exchange with regard to nuclear weapons as the United Kingdom. I know that this requires an agreement under the United States atomic energy act, but I suggest that in the present situation and because of the close relationship we have

with the United States in defence such an agreement should be sought and that we should not be expected to work out our continental defence arrangements with the United States under a continental defence command with this difference as to weapons existing between us. I do not consider this inconsistent with my view on the abolition of nuclear weapons. So I hope that as long as this situation persists we will be put on a basis of equality with the United States so far as exchange of information and tactical defensive air weapons are concerned. Surely that is a reasonable request to make to the United States, and I cannot believe for a minute that they would refuse to make that kind of an arrangement with a country so close to them in so many ways if the approach is made to them.


Mr. Jones:: Would the Leader of the Opposition permit a question? Did I understand him correctly a few moments ago that he was advocating that we should reduce our international obligations in favour of spending that money towards occupation of the north country?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Chairman, what I said was this. If we find that it is necessary to extend our obligations on Canadian soil by taking over some of the facilities and installations now operated and manned by the United States, and if we find that this is impossible because of the extent of our defence obligations abroad, involving as they do responsibilities outside Canada which I think we were very wise in undertaking, that if we cannot do both, then we should at least give consideration to the possibility of reducing some of these obligations abroad if that means we can take over these activities at home which are now being undertaken for us by agreement with the United States. There is nothing wrong about having this kind of operation in Canada performed by the United States because we are doing it in Europe, but in view of the fact that the whole strategy of defence is changing, in view of the fact that the importance of our north country for defence is much greater than it was when we signed the NATO pact 10 years ago, in view of the fact that other NATO countries in Europe itself have found it necessary to reduce some of their NATO obligations, I see nothing wrong in giving consideration to such a reduction on the part of Canada if that is required in order to undertake these additional responsibilities on our own soil.
I certainly would not advocate for one minute that we should withdraw from our NATO obligations in Europe. For political
57071-3-254
Supply-External Affairs reasons I think it is most desirable to maintain a Canadian contribution to the western European NATO defence forces which are defending Canada as well, but I think consideration should be given to the extension of our acceptance of obligations in the north country which are being undertaken by the United States. If that means reconsideration of our responsibilities elsewhere, then I think we should not hesitate to give that reconsideration. That is as far as I go but I think that is going some distance in view of the changing nature of defence and strategy.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question? I want to be perfectly clear as to how far he goes in this direction. I am only asking the question for the purpose of information. I am following him very carefully. Does he suggest that Canada should be assured within this country, in so far as the equipment of our aircraft is concerned, of nuclear weapons supplied by the United States, under whatever arrangement might be achieved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to make this matter as clear as I can. What I am suggesting is this. I used the Bomarc illustration because I thought it was pertinent. If there are two squadrons on a Canadian base, one a United States squadron and one a Canadian squadron and if they are under a joint command-a United States-Canadian NORAD command- then I suggest that there should be nothing in United States legislation which would prevent that Canadian squadron from using the kind of defensive tactical weapon-and I used the Bomarc as illustration-which the United States squadron would be automatically using and which presumably would not be available to the Canadian squadron because under United States law, as it stands at the present time, that cannot be done.
When we discussed this matter in the committee on external affairs the Secretary of State for External Affairs said there was no intention of storing these weapons in Canada. He went on to say, however, that if an emergency arose they could be made available at a moment's notice. What I suspect is this. If they are not being stored in Canada-this kind of tactical weapon-I suspect that it might be more than a moment's notice that would be required to make them available for a Canadian squadron.


Sidney Earle Smith: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. Would the hon. member yield the floor?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Sidney Earle Smith: What I said in the deliberations in the committee on external affairs was that at the present time

Supply-External Affairs the storing of nuclear weapons was not being considered. I do not recall using the word "does not intend".


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I accept the minister's correction. I have the record of the committee before me and as soon as I sit down I will check on the matter and before this committee is over I shall be able to read to him what the record actually says. If it does not say what I said, I withdraw it, of course, and apologize to him, because I do not wish to misunderstand or to misinterpret his remarks in this important matter in any way. I am suggesting-and I urge the suggestion on the government-that the government should now take into consideration the possibility of Canada being put in exactly the same position with regard to the availability of this weapon with the United States-because these are not weapons of mass destruction-as she is in regard to the exchange of other weapons for aerial defence.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman mentioned the Bomarc. I hope that he realizes that that is not a weapon carried by aircraft; it is a ground-to-air weapon. What I was asking the hon. gentleman was this. Is it his contention that Canadian aircraft operating in Canada for the defence of North America should be equipped by the only means by which they could be equipped, namely by the United States, with nuclear weapons. That is the question on which I was trying to be clear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will try to make the matter clear. I know that the Bomarc is a ground-to-air-missile. I also know that plans-and the Minister of National Defence can correct me if I am wrong when I say that I know; I think I know-have been made and consideration has been given to arming air defence squadrons being placed in these particular squadrons of aircraft with Bomarc ground-to-air missiles. It is undoubtedly possible, perhaps it is true now-and the minister can correct me if I am wrong-that there are also air-to-air missiles which can be fitted with nuclear tips. All I am suggesting is that in that kind of situation a Canadian squadron should be placed on exactly the same basis as a United States squadron in so far as intergovernmental arrangements between the two countries can make it so. At the present time that cannot be done because of legislation of the United States Congress. As the minister has pointed out-and I hope I am reporting him correctly on this-there are in these amendments which were passed in Washington, clauses which authorize the negotiation of an agreement which would make this [Mr. Smith (Hastings-Frontenac).l
possible. I am therefore suggesting to the government that they give consideration now to that kind of agreement.
Those are my concluding words, Mr. Chairman. Surely this is important. If there is going to be continental defence of this kind under a continental command, surely it is important that there should be complete unity, complete co-operation and complete equality with regard to the facilities for defence which are available. I know I have detained the committee for a long time and I apologize. Perhaps as we go on to the consideration of the various estimates there may be detailed points which I may wish to bring to the minister's attention. I shall certainly want to bring to his attention the exact words he used in connection with storing of missiles and in which he believes I have misquoted him. I certainly would not wish to do that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We in this group, Mr. Chairman, welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs on his return from the special assembly of the United Nations. Before proceeding further I might say that while we do not agree on some questions or on some details of policy, we wish him well in all he undertakes with a view to improving international understanding and obtaining international agreement in his efforts working towards international peace.
I listened with a great deal of interest to his report on the Arab resolution and the details surrounding it. I am not going to repeat his words or take the time of the committee to go into details. I must say that from our point of view it was a most interesting development and, I repeat, a most heartening one.
We in this group are glad that this was a unanimous vote and that it appears that the United States in this vote recognized the realities of the Arab situation and, shall I say, the peculiarities of the Arab situation and also to a great extent western world opinion, and also, in supporting this resolution, the responsibility of the United Nations for dealing with this problem over the long run.
Before proceeding I might say that it is well known that this group strongly opposes unilateral action on the part of any country in attempting to deal with a situation like this. I might say that we are not alone in Canada in that respect. Prominent Conservative papers, prominent Liberal papers, other prominent periodicals and a good number of prominent people that support all of the parties in this country or the various parties in this house have expressed opinions similar to ours in that respect.

I was very much interested in the minister's statement that there were deep divisions in the general assembly as to the value or function of an international police force. However, I was very pleased to hear him say that this matter is going to be given further study and consideration. We are very much interested in that aspect of the protective forces of the United Nations. In any event, Mr. Chairman, this unanimous support for the Arab resolution and the spirit that appeared to surround it creates great hope in all of us, I think, and offers a great opportunity to the United Nations, possibly the greatest opportunity it has had to deal with the basic problem that surrounds this Middle East situation that it has had for many years. It gives what I would call a breathing spell. It gives us a cause for cautious optimism.
We were all pleased to hear the minister's remarks with respect to the suspension of nuclear tests by the United Kingdom and the United States for a period of one year. This gives further cause for relief and gives another opportunity to go further and to try to get wider agreement even with other nations in the western world and we hope, finally, with the Soviet union.
I am sure we all feel that the minister was justified in feeling better over the international situation than he has at any time since he became a member of this house. I listened as usual with a great deal of interest to the Leader of the Opposition. We must all recognize the fact that with his knowledge and his long experience as secretary of state for external affairs he has a great advantage over a simple backwoodsman like myself. He knows the majority of the leading figures, and he possibly knows the physical features of most of the countries with which he has had to deal and on that account he would know the circumstances surrounding all these problems. I always listen to him with great interest, although I thought this afternoon that the text of his speech was rather pointless in some directions. I expected him to be a little more emphatic in some instances.
However, I and the other members of this group were very pleased to hear him speak of the need for building up an international police force. While we all recognize the difficulties, nations being what they are, I do not think we should ever lose sight of this objective that we should eventually replace regional and other pacts with an international police force having the authority to maintain world law and order. Other members of this group will have a few words to say on various aspects of this question, so I am not going to deal with it further at this time but will turn to other matters.
57071-3-254i
Supply-External Affairs
As a member of the committee on external affairs, I have had the opportunity to attend meetings of the committee again this session. I have found them to be of great interest and somewhat profitable. The estimates of this department total some $69,484,506, which sounds like a lot of money to many Canadians but I think we must realize first of all that approximately half of that amount goes for expenditures under the Colombo plan or grants to the various United Nations agencies. In reality, therefore, we spend, I would judge, about $35 million on the administration of the Department of External Affairs. That still sounds like a lot of money but, as I view them, our expenditures in this department have increased in ratio to the increase in Canada's responsibility in international affairs and I am sure that no one possessing a knowledge of the world situation today and the responsibilities which Canada must be willing to accept in respect of international affairs would begrudge $35 million out of a budget of over $6 billion as Canada's contribution to the furthering of international understanding and agreement. We in this group consider that our expenditures on external affairs are a first rate investment in the cause of understanding between nations.
The committee examined the estimates in detail and gathered a lot of information from the senior officials of the department and from General McNaughton, the chairman of the international joint commission. Before proceeding, I must say that the members of this group recognize, as I am sure other hon. members recognize, the high calibre and the devoted service of the officials of the Department of External Affairs. I, for one, have noticed since I have been a member of this house that with the expansion of the department there has been even an improvement, shall I say, in the calibre of many members of the staff, and naturally with the developments which have occurred during the last ten years there has been a much broader base of understanding of world problems and Canada's relationship thereto.
I would like to refer briefly to the report of the committee and to bring three or four matters to the attention of this committee, but before doing so I should express the appreciation of the members of that committee for the very fair way in which the chairman arranged sittings sometimes to meet the convenience of members who were sitting on other committees at the same time. We appreciated that consideration very much indeed.

Supply-External Affairs
The first paragraph of the report to which I would like to refer is the following:
The announcement by the Prime Minister of the preliminary step toward the establishment of a parliamentary committee to meet with a United States congressional committee, to examine problems common to both countries and to exchange views and interpret developments to their respective governments was welcomed by your committee. Such a joint committee, it is felt, could be invaluable in the promotion of a greater degree of understanding between the two legislative bodies.
I must say that we in this group give wholehearted support to that opinion of the committee because we believe that not only would it promote a greater understanding between the two legislative bodies but that a committee of this sort, if it is established and is permitted to function regularly and continually, will do a great deal to promote a better understanding on the part of United States legislators and the people of the United States with respect to the particular problems which concern us in Canada. I do hope that the Prime Minister will make arrangements for the establishment of that committee at the earliest possible date, at least so far as this parliament is concerned.
The next paragraph to which I would like to refer is the following:
With regard to the recent report of the United Nations scientific committee on the effect of atomic radiation, your committee expresses a hope that the government will keep under constant review its policy on the suspension of nuclear tests, taking into account the results of the current meetings of scientists at Geneva on the methods of detecting nuclear explosions.
We all heard the very welcome announcement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, since this report was drafted, with respect to the suspension of nuclear tests for one year by agreement between the United Kingdom and the United States. That is a step in the right direction but this paragraph was inserted in the report as a reflection of the committee's concern with respect to this problem and its anxiety that the government should keep under constant review its policy on the suspension of these tests.
The third paragraph to which I wish to draw the attention of the committee reads as follows:
The continuation of studies on the possible establishment of a permanent United Nations force to ensure peace and deter aggression, is considered of great importance.
I might say that the committee's report was adopted unanimously, so that that is an expression of the opinion of all members of the committee. We do hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs will strongly support the final necessity for some form of United Nations police force coming into being.
[Mr. Herridge.l
We know the road will be a difficult, rocky and slow one, but we feel that we should not lose sight of this objective. The final paragraph of the committee's report, which I believe is very interesting, is as follows:
In order to assist your committee in its work, it recommends that, at future sessions of parliament it should commence its sittings within one month of the meeting of the house. Consideration should also be given to the broadening of the role of the committee.
It is those last words in which I am particularly interested "the broadening of the role of the committee". That recommendation indicates a certain feeling on the part of committee members, regardless of party, that the committee could perform a greater function rather than being entirely limited to examination of estimates and the questioning of officials. While such activities are very useful and very necessary the committee members felt that the government should give consideration to the broadening of the role of the committee. While the government is responsible for policy, we do feel that the committee could serve an even more- useful purpose by having certain problems referred to it, maybe problems of a technical nature such as the testing of nuclear weapons, or the problems surrounding disarmament and other matters which might arise as a result of immediate situations. We feel the role of the committee could be extended to the great advantage of this House of Commons in general while, as I have said before, the government accepts the responsibility for policy on external affairs. That is why the committee unanimously adopted that last recommendation in its report.
Mr. Chairman, I see that the Prime Minister is looking this way and I am sure he will be interested to hear what is the foreign policy of the C.C.F. party. We held a national convention on April 23, 24 and 25 in Montreal attended by several hundred delegates from all across Canada. Those delegates had given consideration at the local level to the question of a foreign policy for Canada. The resolutions on foreign policy which were brought to the convention in abundance, were thoroughly discussed for a period of one day and finally sublimated, if I may use that word, in one resolution which was accepted by the convention and adopted. I wish to place on record what the foreign policy of the C.C.F. is at the present time. I will read the resolution and make a comment or two on it.
Foreign Policy
The race between the United States and the Soviet union to achieve superiority in the production and stockpiling of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons is creating a fearful atmosphere throughout the world. New and more powerful weapons, with

a capacity to destroy that confounds the imagination, are being developed at an alarming rate. The C.C.F. warns that this situation cannot continue without a great risk of a world conflagration that could lead to the extinction of life on this planet.
Since that preamble was included in that resolution the Prime Minister has made an announcement which is a heartening step in the right direction.
Believing that it is urgent that greater emphasis be placed on positive means to ease international tensions and further the cause of peace, the convention urges:
1.	That the testing of nuclear weapons be immediately abandoned and banned by all countries.
We hope we are all working toward that end.
2.	That distribution of nuclear weapons to NATO and Warsaw pact countries be discontinued.
Very strong emphasis was placed on that point at our national conference.
3.	That as soon as the testing and distribution of nuclear weapons has been stopped, a concerted effort be made to move forward to a policy of progressive disarmament involving both nuclear and conventional weapons, subject to adequate international inspection and control through the United Nations.
We in this group hope that events in recent days have provided some further opportunity for developments in that direction.
4.	That advantage be taken of every opportunity for negotiation between the western powers and the U.S.S.R. with a view to establishing a neutralized zone in central Europe, and finding a solution to other political problems.
Though on account of recent events our eyes have been directed to the Middle East, we still have the core of the international situation situated, as it were, in the heart of Europe. For that reason the C.C.F. included that paragraph in its foreign policy declaration.
We also urge:
5.	That a permanent international police force be established under the United Nations for use in critical situations as the occasion arises.
I made a few remarks on that subject earlier.
6.	That, pending a large general settlement between eastern and western powers which will make it possible to dispense with regional alliances such as NATO, every policy be promoted which strengthens economic co-operation among NATO countries.
I do not think anyone would fail to recognize the fact that we have done very little to date to give effect to article 2 of the North Atlantic treaty.
7.	That much greater emphasis be placed on economic aid through the United Nations, and to this end Canada should offer to contribute at least one per cent of its national income to a world plan of economic aid and development.
We have taken some steps in that direction, but we in this group believe we could do more and should do more. And finally:
Supply-External Affairs
The C.C.F. believes that Canada, in advancing these policies, should seek at all times to develop her own foreign policy and not allow herself to become compromised by views abroad which do not effectively promote world peace.
On that point, Mr. Chairman, I want to say on behalf of this group that while we realize there has been some progress we should like to see this government speak with a stronger voice on certain issues. We notice that the courage of our government is in ratio, shall I say, to the settlement of any international situation; we wait for other governments to act; we become brave after the problem has been met by the announcements of governments of greater nations. We do urge the government to speak with a stronger voice as far as Canada is concerned, and to use its prestige and influence in the world to give a lead on important issues and to indicate that Canada has a foreign policy which is not entirely dependent on Mr. Dulles or anybody of his mind.
We believe this could be done by standing up at this time and giving recognition to the government of China. When we find people like Mr. Muir going over there, to investigate conditions and when the Royal Bank of Canada prints his address in its monthly pamphlet entitled: "The Challenge of China"; when we find industrialists in British Columbia, large mining and smelting concerns and leaders of other industries in British Columbia, urging this action, then surely the government must realize that such a move would receive the support of the vast majority of the Canadian people.
We urge the government of Canada to take this step and show we are not waiting for the United States to take action first. The United States will recognize China at some future time, and if our government continues its present policy we can look forward to the recognition of China the day after the United States does so. We ask this government to take the lead.
To indicate British opinion on this matter I want to quote from a very reputable paper, the Christian Science Monitor of August 15, 1958. The article is headed "Bevan Rips Dulles on Red China Snub", and this is what Mr. Bevan, as reported in this newspaper, had to say:
If they persist in their present policies, then the smaller powers should concert among themselves to defy a leadership so myopic, so smugly self-satisfied, so dangerous and so unequal to the imperious needs of the times.
The article goes on:
Unfortunately for the smooth-running of Anglo-American relations, the majority of British people agree with Mr. Bevan in his deploring of American non-recognition of communist China.
It is one of the very few matters of which the nation as a whole does agree with Mr. Bevan.

Supply-External Affairs
I urge on behalf of this group that the government indicate that we do have an independent foreign policy. Let the government speak with a strong voice for Canada and recognize the government of China; let it speak with a stronger voice for the development of international agreement for the abandonment of nuclear tests; let it speak with a stronger voice in drawing attention to the economic injustice suffered by multitudes of people, because we know that there can be no peace in the world until economic injustice is removed from the Middle East, or from the Far East, or wherever it is found. And let it speak with a stronger voice with respect to the need for speeding up negotiations on disarmament as a result of an international agreement on inspection.
In conclusion I may say that the contribution of this group to the debate is a plea to the government of Canada to speak up with a stronger voice on the subjects I have mentioned.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I rise only to clear up a point concerning an exchange between the minister and myself regarding what he actually said in the committee on external affairs. I have the record before me; indeed, the hon. gentleman was good enough to send it over to me himself. On the bottom of page 103 the following appears:


Sidney Earle Smith: I just reiterate; I am not unhappy about the United Kingdom-United States arrangement.
That was the arrangement for the exchange of information on nuclear weapons.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We are not unhappy about it either, but that is not the point. The point is that surely the Americans can send us up a Bomare for a Canadian squadron and say "fine; it is your own, if you pay for it". But when they send us up a nuclear warhead for the Bomare for a Canadian squadron they say, "you can use it if we permit you to use it. You can store it on your station, but you cannot use it until we permit you to use it."


Sidney Earle Smith: There is no question about storing nuclear warheads in Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Items 86 to 103, inclusive, agreed to.
Terminable services-
104. Colombo plan, $35,000,000.
(Translation):
Mr. Deschatelets:: 
Mr. Ricard:: You are completely out of order.


Mr. Denis:: We have a new chairman. Do you not like this?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: He is a small man; he is very little.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, now
that the government has 50 Quebec members to support it in this house, and that these gentlemen have no doubt acquired some sense of responsibility since the last elections, I hope that they will side with their government in respect of the Colombo plan and of the help to be given to under-developed countries. I hope that we will be spared this myth which was circulated in recent election campaigns, a myth fostered by reactionaries more concerned with demagogic advantage than with finding a solution to the great problems with which humanity is faced at this time.
Mr. Chairman, those of us who sit on this side of the house are proud to see that this year the government has increased assistance to under-developed countries under the Colombo plan. I do not think there is any greater challenge to western countries than to help raise the living standards of those countries situated along the borders of Russia and China and whose political organization has been developing along democratic lines.
I have the feeling that, at times, our political analysts and commentators overemphasize the few errors that Canada has possibly made in the international field; for they were errors made in good faith. On the other hand, I believe our successes are being underplayed. Indeed I do not know of anything we could have done that has been more practical, more human, and more likely to bring dividends than the assistance we have been giving for the last two years under the Colombo Plan. And the Liberals are very proud of their leadership in that regard because those countries badly need that assistance.
Supply-External Affairs
In the whole history of mankind, I do not know of any similar example, or precedent, where countries, for the sake of the survival of democracy on earth, shared their surpluses with needy nations. And we are not the poorer for it; we are as rich as we were a few years ago. Yet if, so far, we have been favoured and protected by providence, it is true that, even in Canada, people have, from time to time, to face hardship, and I know of none more cruel than that which has been visited upon us since March 31st last. However, Mr. Chairman, we are quite resigned to it, knowing that it is only temporary.
Mr. Chairman, I merely wanted to make that point clear. I do not want to hold up the estimates of the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith), but I know that truth has its own rights. That is why I have spoken into the record facts which nobody can deny. If, however, some of my hon. Conservative friends from the province of Quebec want to refute them, I suggest they do so when I sit down.
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I would like a recorded vote on this item.
Item agreed to; yeas, 78; nays, nil.
A-Department and missions abroad 542. Departmental administration-further amount required, $259,230.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, on this item, which is a further item for departmental administration, I want to raise a particular matter. During this session all members in this house have expressed their concern regarding, and their unaltered opposition to, the Soviet union whenever it has done something that we felt should rightly be condemned, and in the case of Imre Nagy it was said in all parts of this house that his execution was an international tragedy. I think it is our duty to raise anything that we feel is wrong and should not take place, and perhaps more particularly if this possible occurrence should be within the boundaries of a friendly nation. I think Canadians in all walks of life have been deeply disturbed by the report of the pending execution, because of a sentence in the courts of Alabama, of a man by the name of Jimmie Wilson for having stolen $1.95 from a white woman.
In our discussion of external affairs it is possible for members in this house to refer to actions in any other nation of the world even though, as is always the case, we have no direct control and no direct responsibility

Supply-External Affairs over what may happen. The nation to the south of us is a friendly nation, a nation of people with whom we get along exceedingly well and a nation which has a particular place in my own heart because my mother happened to be born in the United States and did not come to Canada until she was an adult woman. I may say that my early recollections of discussions in our home as to the relative advantage of the Canadian type of parliamentary constitution and the United States type I had it impressed upon me very vigorously by my mother that the United States system in some particulars had some very distinct advantages. Therefore, I am not in any way anti-United States; if anything, I am pro-United States. Because of that, it disturbs me even more to think that under their law such a sentence may be carried out, and within the next few days.
As I understand it, the jurisdiction over clemency is under the governor of the state of Alabama, James E. Folsom. I have read reports-in fact, I have them in front of me-saying that the governor of that state very frequently has taken a lenient and humanitarian approach to such problems. I would express the hope that in this case the lenient, humanitarian aspects of the governor's character would prevail and that this execution may be prevented and will not take place.
President Eisenhower of the United States has taken a very stalwart attitude in opposition to discrimination within his nation because of race, colour or creed. Parliamentarians in all parties in Canada take that same attitude. I express the hope in the parliament of Canada that humanitarian aspects and attitudes and the deep generosity of the United States people will prevail and that this execution will not take place. I have said that I make this request on humanitarian grounds. There are other grounds. I think it would be an international calamity if the leaders of the communist world were given this ready-made club with which to continue their nefarious and troublesome course in the world.
I am not asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make a public pronouncement. I am not even asking him to say whether the Canadian government has given any thought to the matter but as a fellow member of parliament I do say to him that it is my hope that he and the government will use what I believe to be Canada's very great influence at all levels in the United States to see if we can assist in preventing this very disastrous thing from taking place on September 5.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to enter into a general discussion of a matter concerning another country, for gratuitous advice coming from this country respecting the administration of the criminal law of another country would be improper. In his opening words the hon. member referred to the strong stand taken when the premier of Hungary was murdered, in a totally tyrannical and unjustified manner. I do not take second place to anybody in humanitarian feelings respecting the need in these days of the rigours of the criminal law not being applied in the manner in which they were a little more than 100 years ago, but it would indeed be most improper for this government to take any action along the lines suggested, although not directly requested, by the hon. gentleman.
As I understand it, under the law of Alabama robbery is an offence punishable with death, and the fact that the convicted man is of one colour or another does not enter into the equation. I can still remember one of my forebears, who lived not to such a great age, telling me as a boy of executions taking place in what is now this province for the theft of two or three shillings. The general trend in all countries has been towards amelioration of the terrible penalties that used to be imposed, and having regard to the situation in the case in question and the fact that there is the right of appeal available to the state supreme court, in addition to the right of commutation of sentence in the governor, I am sure that the fears of the hon. gentleman may well be expected to be dissolved in the light of the reaction of the people within that country without other countries making known their views, based on the deep and abiding necessity of assuring the humanitarian ideals and emotions that move us all.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have just one word to say on the matter raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia. If and when one incident violates or appears to violate principles of law and justice, whether in our own country or in a neighbouring and friendly country, if and when that happens we do harm to ourselves and we do harm to the principles which we proclaim. Those systems which are not founded on our concept of law and justice seize on such violations and magnify and distort them in a way that harms the cause of freedom and free people everywhere.
I do not know all the facts in this particular case. If they are as reported in the press it would appear to be a tragic matter. But the United States, our friendly neighbour, is a land of law and justice, a land where people can right wrongs and correct

injustices, and if there is wrong or injustice in this case I have confidence that the people of that state and that country will correct it.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his contribution to this discussion. I trust that the hope expressed by the Prime Minister in the concluding words of his statement will be borne out in subsequent days. The Prime Minister has said that the sentence imposed under the law of the state of Alabama is based entirely on a conviction for robbery and that colour has nothing to do with it whatsoever. That may be a correct statement of the written law but I am fearful, as I think many informed people are, that the application of the law is much more severe and rigorous in the case of a coloured man who is found guilty of robbing a white woman than in a similar case if a white person is found guilty. I am certain that a great many thinking people would question the assumption made by the Prime Minister but even if he were correct it is just as regrettable that this conviction should be hanging over a man who, according to the reports we read, has been found guilty of an offence involving the stealing of $1.95.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charles Edward Rea: That completes the estimates of the Department of External Affairs.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I am not out of order, I should like to say for the record that we were able to get through our work as quickly as we did because of the fact that these estimates were given very careful consideration by the standing committee on external affairs.



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
58. Departmental administration, $706,492.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. lady going to favour us with a statement?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, it occurred to me that in the interests of orderly discussion it might be well if I made a few remarks on the first division in these estimates, namely the citizenship registration branch and the citizenship branch, and reserved any further comments which I might make on immigration or on Indian affairs to their respective divisions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. lady would permit me to intervene. I think it has always been customary, on the departmental administration item which is the item which has been called, to permit a certain amount of general discussion. Of course 57071-3-255
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration I would not want to usurp the place of the hon. lady if she wished to go first on that item, but I think it might help, as it might possibly be unnecessary to have much discussion on the other items if we had a rather general discussion on the first item.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the hon. member misunderstood me. I intend to make a few remarks here on the citizenship registration branch and the citizenship branch but anything further that is to be said on immigration or on Indian affairs I propose to deal with on votes 62 and 66 respectively.
The Canadian citizenship registration branch is charged, as hon. members know, with the determination of the status of persons claiming Canadian citizenship, the examination of applications under the act of persons applying for Canadian citizenship and the preparation of certificates. The branch is also responsible for the procedures involving revocation or loss of Canadian citizenship and the procedures pertaining to the registration of births of Canadian citizens outside of Canada.
During 1957 more than 151,000 applications under the Canadian Citizenship Act were received by the branch compared with approximately 100,000 in 1956. As a result of these applications approximately 142,000 certificates were prepared, 95,000 of which were granted to persons acquiring Canadian citizenship in 1957. In 1956 a total of almost 80,000 certificates were prepared, 55,000 of which were granted to applicants for citizenship. Citizenship was granted in 1957 to 8,650 British subjects, and 86,812 aliens, while in 1956, 5,812 British subjects and 49,590 aliens were granted Canadian citizenship. There were more than 39,000 miniature certificates issued during 1957. This is an increase of more than 21,000 over 1956.
In this connection I should like to refer to remarks made early this session by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville, and I quote from page 15 of the English translation of the speech he delivered in French on May 26, 1958:
It is a well known and incontrovertible fact that, at this time, Canadian citizens are unable to produce an efficient means of identification. Yet everybody knows that the introduction of legislation designed to remedy this situation would be highly advantageous.
Then later in his speech he went on to say this:
What does the Canadian citizen have today by way of identification? We have nothing but secondary documents: a driver's licence, a pass, a credit card, all of which can be stolen by someone else and used fraudulently. In my opinion, it is absolutely necessary that people have a real identification card, so made that it could not be imitated.
4022	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
The hon. member submitted that this responsibility should be entrusted to the Department ot Citizenship and Immigration. It is unfortunate that the hon. member did not take time to check his facts. Had he done so, he would have learned that since October 1954 the Canadian citizenship registration branch of this department has been issuing pocket size certificates of citizenship laminated in plastic, carrying a photograph and a specimen signature of the bearer, together with pertinent descriptive information. Since October 1954, more than 65,000 of these miniature certificates have been issued to Canadian citizens and the demand for them is greater each year.
As the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville apparently needs a proper identification document, if he will fill in the appropriate form which he can obtain from my office, and return it accompanied by two photographs of himself, I will see that he gets a miniature citizenship certificate, without payment of the regular fee, as a gift from the minister.
To return to registration, 86 per cent of the applicants for citizenship in 1957 resided in urban areas, while 14 per cent resided in rural districts. For applicants in rural areas residing some distance from a court special procedures are available under the act, whereby they may file their applications directly with the registrar. In order to deal with these applications from remote areas, 24 persons were appointed under the Canadian Citizenship Act in 1957 to act as courts for citizenship purposes. These apointments brought to 65 the number of courts so appointed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by pointing out to the committee or, perhaps I should say, reminding those members of the committee who were in a similar committee in the last brief parliament that when the hon. lady presented the estimates of another department at that time I predicted that she would soon advance in the cabinet. My prediction turns out to have been right. The hon. lady began her career as minister by occupying the portfolio that was entrusted to me when I began my career as minister. She has now succeeded to the other portfolio I held while I was a minister. The highest hope I can express for the hon. lady is that after the next election she may find herself where I am now.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That is not much of a hope.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, it may well be that in spite of that I will do what I can before that time comes to see that the hon.


lady is not even here at all. However, that is not meant to be a threat. I think there are other ministers whom I would sooner take on in verbal combat than the hon. lady because I imagine she could rally to her support quite considerable numbers not only of the members of her own sex but perhaps even more of the other.
I want to say that it has been my view- and I was rather proud of this fact when I occupied the position which the hon. lady now occupies-that this department, namely the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, through its activities has contributed greatly to that quite extraordinary development of our country that has taken place in the years since immigration was resumed after the second world war. I must say that I very much appreciated a tribute that was paid the other day to what had happened to this country in those years, so much so that I should like to recall to the minds of members of the committee this statement:
Canada's future promises tremendous expansion and, in my opinion, greater than any other nation in the world in the next quarter century.
Those words I wish particularly to commend to the committee.
Behind us is a record of nation-building unmatched in history;
That tribute to the work of the St. Laurent government by the present Prime Minister when he opened the exhibition in Toronto two days ago is very much appreciated on this side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do think that the work of the hon. lady's department has greatly contributed to this end, but I must say I was not able to find quite the same encouragement in another part of the Prime Minister's speech on that occasion, when he said the following:
The employment situation is improving and in July 1958, Canadians with jobs numbered 5,934,000-
Mark these words:
-only 15,000 below the high level in 1957, and 145,000 more than in July 1956. There has been an upturn in employment this spring and summer-a good deal more than seasonal.
I think we can take only very limited satisfaction from these statistics. We have half a million more people in this country than we had when the present administration came into office and it is not much of a boast for the Prime Minister to make, that there are 15,000 fewer of them working. I have no doubt, of course, that that is the reason why the department is continuing to follow the policy which was the first change in policy from that followed by the previous

administration, the policy of severely restricted immigration. I am afraid it is very unlikely that if things go on the way they are going now the hon. lady will be able to boast, when she comes to the end of her career as minister of immigration, that she brought immigration to the highest point which had been reached since 1913, which was the record of the Liberal government.
Nothing I have heard during this parliament has moved me more than the words used by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort in his maiden speech in this house, and I make no apology for trespassing for a moment on the time of the committee to recall a few of those words at this time because they are strictly relevant to the work of the hon. lady's department. The hon. member talked about his arrival in Ottawa, and as reported at page 476 of Hansard for May 26, 1958, he said:
When I arrived here in Ottawa for the first time and walked across from Union station to parliament hill I was all eyes, and my heart was filled with emotion when I saw the graceful parliament buildings, the statues and the other historic sites. The first statue that I walked up to was that of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the great French-Canadian statesman, and as I looked up I could almost see a twinkle in his eyes. I thought I could hear him say these words: "What are you, a little immigrant of just 29 years residence, here in Ottawa for? Didn't I hear you say that all you wanted from life was to come to Canada and to make a home for yourself and your family? I thought you were very content when Canada had given you this opportunity and your life's ambition was achieved, but now I see you are here as the new member for Humboldt-Melfort to represent this great constituency in the 24th parliament. As this is the case, go on then, and do the job assigned to you for the glory of Canada and your constituency." These are the words I thought I heard this great statesman say to me, and as I walked slowly away a vision appeared before my eyes depicting the last 29 years spent in this wonderful country of my adoption,
I do not think even the most stonyhearted of us could help but be moved by that statement. In the world in which we are now living there are very few countries about which such words could be used, and I am not seeking to make any particular point of this. I could not help but think that it was a good thing that the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort came to Canada in 1929, when the government was a Liberal government, because in 1930 the doors were closed and in the years after, from 1930 until 1935, we actually had a net emigration from this country. It does seem to me, sir, that this was one of those bad turns which we have taken in the course of our development, and I do hope we are not going to take another one now.
I am not suggesting, of course, that we have taken such a turn; I do not blame the present administration for not bringing to 57071-3-255J
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Canada people who cannot find any work here. The position we took when in office and the position I would take if I were still in office is that it would be a great mistake -the greatest mistake we could possibly make so far as the future of immigration is concerned-if we encouraged people to come here to settle in this country when there were no opportunities for them to get jobs fairly quickly. My experience as a minister, and I am sure this is the experience of the hon. lady, is that one dissatisfied immigrant can do more harm to Canada's reputation abroad than one hundred do good. We cannot, of course, help having a few dissatisfied people, but we certainly do not want to bring immigrants to this country to be dissatisfied. I have no criticism of the fact, in itself, that at the present time because of limited employment opportunities the department is not bringing people here.
I do hope, and we all hope, that the conditions now prevailing will soon change and that the Prime Minister was right when he said there has been an upturn in employment this spring and summer, "a good deal more than seasonal". No one will rejoice at this more than those of us who believe that there is a great future in this country and that there is going to be room in it for even more people than those we can produce at home, and there is no reason for not producing at home all we reasonably can produce. My thoughts on that subject are very well known and I have never made any apology for them.
I was very pleased indeed when the hon. lady's department announced the other day that, in order to complete the liquidation of the situation created in the free world by the tragic events two years ago in Hungary, the Canadian government had undertaken to receive, if I remember the figure correctly, 1,100 more Hungarian refugees. On the day I read that announcement I asked a question in this house and was given some information which I do not have at hand but which is of the most encouraging and reassuring nature. I am sure that most Canadians will agree with these remarks if they are possessed of any breadth of view at all.
Here were people who had left their country with nothing but what they were wearing and who could not go back to their country for fear at least of imprisonment and possibly of death, who had none of the advantages of most immigrants but who, after one and a half years in Canada at the most, had made their way to such an extent that of the 35,000 who came here less than 1,000 were receiving support from the department. As a matter of fact I think the figure was a great deal less than that. Those who had thrown up

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the sponge and had gone back to Hungary numbered less than 500. I apologize for quoting these figures from memory, but I do not think my recollection is very far out and, if anything, I have given a high figure for those receiving assistance. What this means is that these people who had no intention or thought of ever coming to Canada until these tragic events took place, had made no preparation for what they would find here. Let us not forget that most of them were young people who lived for 15 years under a communist regime with all that that implies, are for the most part adapting themselves to the new and difficult conditions of a new country, establishing themselves, and that most of them are already self-supporting.
I would think that that is something in which we can take some satisfaction. I make no apology for saying that I am not ashamed of my part in it, and I want to say without any hesitation whatsoever that I am very appreciative of the fact that the present administration under the hon. lady and under the Minister of Justice who preceded her in charge of the department have followed precisely the policies that were followed by the previous administration, and that there has been no political controversy whatsoever about this very important migration.
Perhaps I might not have said this if we were not following immediately after the consideration of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, but I want to say that 3 believe that if the Canadian government, with the unanimous support of the Canadian parliament, had not shown the vigour which we showed in December of 1956, this problem of the free world would not have been solved. We Canadians did far more in relation to our size and resources than any other country in the world. In fact we have taken almost as many Hungarian refugees as the United States which has ten times our population and much more than ten times our wealth, and if we had not done what we did in the way we did it and with the vigour with which it was done-I am not seeking any special credit for myself, because we were all unanimous about it-this problem might not have been solved; and if tens of thousands of these Hungarians had gone back behind the iron curtain the moral effect on the whole world is something I should not like to be contemplating now. Therefore, I think we, as Canadians, regardless of party, can take some satisfaction in this one particular achievement of the hon. lady's department.
I have no other general observations to make at this stage about immigration but I do want to say one very brief word about citizenship, and only one very brief word at

this time. I noticed the other day-in fact, on June 30-a report in the Toronto Star of a meeting of the Czechoslovak Canadians in Toronto which was addressed by a predecessor of the hon. lady and of myself, the first minister of citizenship and immigration in the history of Canada, Hon. Walter Harris. During this meeting, Mr. Harris took exception to statements which had been made by one of the county judges. I am not going to give his name or the part of the country from which he comes because I have no desire to pillory anyone; it is just the sentiment that was expressed to which I want to take exception here, as Mr. Harris took exception to it on that occasion. This judge was reported to have said that many new Canadians are unwilling to renounce their countries of origin, and cited instances of Russian Canadians and Dutch Canadians turning out in national costume to greet visiting fellow countrymen. Mr. Harris' comment on this, which I want to make my own, was as follows:
I disagree with the judge. It is a proper thing to honour the visiting head of an allied state. If there was a free president of the state of Czechoslovakia I would expect you to honour him if he visited Canada.
Mr. Harris went on to point out that there was no need to lose one's pride in one's origin and to lose one's pride in one's heritage and one's past because one has become a Canadian citizen.
It seems to me that one of the reasons we have for having a greater pride in our citizenship than almost any other people in the world is that to as great an extent as any other country in the world, once we have admitted people to this country we do generally accept them, as fellow citizens on a basis of equality and I hope that may always be the case.
I want also to say a word, before I conclude these remarks, about the future of those original inhabitants of this country who were here before any of our ancestors or any of us came to this country. I feel, and I have always felt, that the supreme responsibility of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration-the most important responsibility of all -is that responsibility which appertains to another office which the hon. lady holds, the office of superintendent general of Indian affairs, which is the oldest office in the public service of Canada, an office which, like some of our ancestors, was transported across the Niagara river from the state of New York into Canada after the American revolution, an office which has persisted ever since.
It does seem to me that it should be our ambition in Canada to make that office obsolete, and that the supreme duty of anyone

charged with the responsibility for Indian affairs should be to see that the day will come as soon as possible when there will no longer be any Indian affairs in Canada, but not in the way, of course, in which that, unhappily, happened in the province in which I was elected.
We do know, of course, that in the last generation the Indian population of this country, far from decreasing as had been the case for a long time, has been increasing and that today it is increasing more rapidly than the rest of the population though it has no additions through immigration. We do know that the policy of segregation, whatever there may have been to say for it when it was adopted a century ago, is certainly no answer to the problem as it exists today. Not that anybody, least of all the superintendent general, should ever think of forcible desegregation, because there are so many of the Indians who fear that, as the minister has no doubt discovered and as I discovered on more than one occasion. But I do think it should be our aim to the greatest possible extent that it can be done by voluntary means and by persuasion to encourage, support and help the Indians to move away from segregation and to become ordinary members of the Canadian community.
Of course, I believe that the most effective way to achieve that, as soon as it can be done in an ordinary fashion without outraging people's feelings and without upsetting existing arrangements to which people have devoted their lives and energies until something better can replace them, would be to end segregation in education, and I hope the hon. lady, even if we are at the stage of trying to end the session as soon as we can and we do not want to take undue time on the estimates of her department, will tell us what progress is being made in the field of joint education.
By that I mean an arrangement for bringing the Indians into the same schools as other citizens so that they are brought up together from the beginning because there is no substitute for that, none whatever. I know a great many improvements have been made in the last ten years in the field of Indian education. Every year some new improvements are made. I do not expect the hon. lady has had very much time since she assumed her portfolio, and she has been sitting in the house most of the time since then, to make any great reforms herself but I would be interested if she would tell us what progress is being made particularly with the scholarship scheme that was instituted a year or two ago and what progress is being made in having more and more
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Indians take vocational training and in encouraging some of the most promising of them to go to the universities.
There is another aspect of Indian integration which was very close to my heart when I was the minister and that is what was called economic development. Since the minister was not present last January when I last discussed the subject I shall make no apology for repeating very briefly what I said then about the useful things that were being done in this field. I remember the first time an approach was made to the gold mines to persuade them to take some Indians into their employ. I was approached by a representative of the mining association to see if I would not try to find immigrants to go into the mines. In reply I said, "You have labour right at your door, labour that has always been here. Will you not try Indians?" I must say that when I first suggested it the suggestion was considered startling. They seemed almost horrified at the idea but I persuaded them to make an attempt and I was greatly gratified by the reports I received of those experiences. I was also greatly pleased by the last report I heard of what was being done, particularly at Pickle Crow. I daresay the hon. lady may not herself have become familiar with that yet, but it is one of the more successful attempts to find really useful employment for the Indians in the area in which they live, a locality where perhaps it would not be too easy to persuade newcomers to the country to go in the first instance.
At the time I was in the department and in direct touch with this work we had a gentleman, Mr. Mel Jack, who has now moved on to other fields. I make no apology for mentioning his name. I had a little something to do with Mr. Jack coming into the department in the first place. I thought he brought to this work an imagination, an energy and sometimes an unorthodox approach that was not characteristic of all civil servants. Perhaps he was more the kind of civil servant I was than some other civil servants are but-


Mr. McGee:: You are too modest.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but I will not carry that analogy any further. What I am concerned about and my reason for mentioning this is that I want to be assured that the work Mr. Jack was doing in the department is being carried out in the same spirit in which he was doing it because his conception about what should be done about the problem, and it was also mine, was that we must not mollycoddle the Indians. The thing to do, in his view, was to try to find work for these people and encourage them to stand on their
4026	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration own feet, look after themselves, and become self-respecting and independent members of society. It seemed to me that Mr. Jack enjoyed the most extraordinary success in interesting employers and other people in this activity and all hon. gentlemen know how much all these activities depend upon the devotion and initiative of those who have direct charge of them.
I do hope this work is provided for adequately as I hope all the activities of the department are provided for adequately. It is because these two aspects of Indian affairs, education and economic development, seem to me to be the road to the future that I make no apology for having made special reference to them. That is in no sense meant to disparage the other very necessary activities of the department.
I am sure the hon. lady has been criticized, as I was criticized, for the unfortunate aspect of the department; that is, the necessity and obligation we as a people are under to see that the welfare of the Indians is looked after even though-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sorry if I am
trespassing-


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it the wish of the committee to give unanimous consent to permitting the hon. member to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had just a thought or two to express before concluding and I am grateful for the indulgence of the committee for permitting me to underline the following points. I believe we must not forget the Indians are not to blame for the state in which too many of them still find themselves and that we have an inescapable obligation to see that the Indians who are not able to look after themselves are looked after in an adequate fashion. But we must also always keep before us the real objective to put them in a position where they feel they can compete with others on an equal basis. There is no doubt whatever that Indians have just as much intelligence on the average as the rest of us but what they do lack in so many cases is that feeling of confidence that comes from a certain measure of independence and above everything else this is what we must seek to give them.


Mr. Cardiff:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would permit a comment


before someone else speaks. If he would permit a comment I would say that I have noted a vast difference in the ex-minister since his association with Mel Jack began.


Mr. Badanai:: Mr. Chairman, of all the
numerous departments of our government the one over which the hon. lady presides with such grace and distinction is to my mind one of the most important. I wish to congratulate the charming minister for the diligence and prompt attention she gives to inquiries with respect to matters under her jurisdiction which even I as a new member have been able to observe in the short few months I have had the privilege of sitting in this chamber. I have had occasion to contact the minister on several occasions, mostly by mail, and I have always received courteous and immediate attention. I have no doubt that all hon. members of this committee in their experience with it have gained the impression that this is an efficient, well-run department.
The Gordon report on Canada's economic prospects-and by the way, it is not a secret document-states that a substantial flow of immigrants is needed during the next seven or eight years to compensate for the relative scarcity of native-born entrants into the labour force. It also makes reference to the Department of Labour's estimates that in the absence of immigration in the nine years between 1946 and 1955 the labour force would have declined with a resultant retarding of our economic development.
I realize that there are arguments against immigration. One is that immigrants take jobs from the native-born and the other is that they work for less pay. I disagree with both of these opinions. Immigration creates new consumer markets and in some cases it has brought considerable capital investment and has been responsible for the establishment of new industry. And, as pointed out by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, it has been responsible for bringing in people who have made a notable contribution to the development of the country.
As for wages, immigrants from the British Isles and from Europe are not unfamiliar with trade unions. As a matter of fact, those immigrants came to us because of a desire to better their standard of living, as is the desire of any Canadian, and are therefore not a deterrent to well developed trade unions. On the contrary, they are for the most part the trade union's greatest supporters.
It should not be forgotten that the whole of Canada's prosperity has been brought about by immigration. It can be said that the development of our natural resources and the prosperity of our country as a whole

are a direct result of population. Since 1939, as the Gordon report shows:
The development has been rippling across many sectors of the economy. According to a publication known as the "Population Reference Bureau" which has been doing research work on Canada, the high ratio of resources to people places Canada in the most favourable position in the world.
Canadians are wont to compare Canada with the United States, the income, the production and the number of consumers. The Gordon report states that the United States produced 16 times as much as Canada did. There is no question that the relative position of the Canadian people will improve as the population grows. Canada has 4.3 persons per square mile in comparison with 58 per square mile in the United States; therefore, no one can say that we are overcrowded.
It is rather significant that during most of those years immigration has been averaging 120,000 a year. Now, immigration is practically at a standstill. It seems to me we should be looking forward and beyond the present setback in unemployment, which appears to be a deterrent to immigration.
Where are the plans for the development of the north? Surely this government can direct the economy to full employment and adopt a long-term policy on immigration and give immediate consideration to the lifting of the present restrictions.
Speaking of restrictions, I may say it appears to me that a more generous attitude toward immigrants from Asiatic countries should be considered, especially where there is a distinct hardship imposed on Canadian citizens of Chinese and Japanese origin, when individuals are seeking admission of certain categories of relatives which section 20(d) of the act seems to exclude, such as an older brother, a nephew, a married daughter and her family, an adopted son, a widowed sister, and so on.
My experience with people of Asiatic origin has been most happy. In Fort William we have several hundred people of Japanese and Chinese extraction, and they are the most industrious and law-abiding citizens that we have. If we broaden the ethnic origins by immigration from any and all countries it will not harm us. On the contrary, it will be beneficial. Canada's transition to a multiracial society can make only for new strength and stability. But what is even more important than the conditions of entry to Canada is the way we treat immigrants once they are admitted for permanent residence in our country. We want to make sure that all Canadians, whatever their origin, have complete equality in letter and in spirit in this nation of Canada.
Since the end of world war II more than 1J million immigrants have arrived in
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They have settled in all parts of the country, in large cities, in small towns, and in rural areas. Once they have arrived in Canada their new homeland their great and overwhelming ambition is to become Canadian citizens. The story of how these new Canadians are finally and formally inducted into the fabric of Canadian citizenship and into the responsibilities which Canadian citizenship entails is not one to which we can point with pride.
I have before me a copy of a survey of some naturalization court ceremonies held in some communities throughout the country. They more or less follow a pattern. Usually they are held in a courthouse in an uninspiring setting, with a judge saying a few words of caution, followed by a short address by some elected or appointed official, maybe the mayor or a member of parliament, or the president of the chamber of commerce. Were it not for the interest shown by members of the Imperial Order Daughters of the Empire, who are usually represented and who do try to emphasize the patriotic motive of the event by handing out a booklet on Canada, there is little to indicate the tremendous importance of the ceremony, not only to the recipient but to every Canadian.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is a lady of perception and well-versed in the activities of that wonderful organization, the I.O.D.E., which I have already mentioned. I express the hope that the government will consider the establishment of a uniform program, with suitable publicity provided for. The book which I hold in my hand, issued by the Canadian citizenship council, contains several good suggestions and from it I wish to read one or two paragraphs which indicate the study and care which went into the preparation of this book:
Could we have a ceremony ritual incorporated in the citizenship act? This could leave room for local variations, but the main items would be part of the act, simply establishing that the granting of certificates shall be by award in public, each recipient shall be accompanied by his sponsors, and the presiding judge shall follow the procedure laid down in schedule X. Representatives of local, civic and provincial authorities and organizations interested in citizenship shall be invited to attend and, where convenient, be given part in the ceremony. All of this should be set out in the act in legal phraseology.
I express the hope that the hon. lady will give serious consideration to a new approach to the reception of new Canadian citizens and a long range plan of immigration.


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: I well realize, Mr. Chairman, that possibly the patience of the committee is getting rather limited at this point. However, I should like to take a few minutes to bring
4028	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration to the attention of the minister a very important matter. I am rising on a matter of extreme urgency and I should like to appeal to the minister for immediate attention to this problem if at all possible.
It concerns the adequacy of fresh drinking water for the Indian people who live on the Eskasoni reservation in my constituency. Since 1956, two years ago, the chief of the Eskasoni band, Mr. Wilfred Prosper, has been seeking improved water facilities for his people. To illustrate this point may I read from a letter dated October 30, 1957, signed by Chief Prosper and bringing the matter to my attention. At that time he said:
Many of our people are drinking water from our brooks and marshes and many of our children have in the past been adversely affected.
May I add here that I have personally seen these people dipping water out of roadside drains. That, you will agree, is a very startling statement. Equally startling is his next statement:
Since our agent has been unsuccessful we are asking you to intercede for us as correction has been promised over a year ago.
For more than a year these Indian people have been forced to endanger their health and perhaps their lives by having to resort to drainage water after their drilled wells ceased to yield a sufficient supply or became grossly contaminated. Fortunately new sources of water have been found for them but at a considerable distance from their homes.
I brought this matter to the attention of the former minister and it is my information that the regional superintendent of Indian agencies for the maritimes conducted a full investigation. In his recommendation he stated that the only logical course of action now open to the department is to instal a proper pressure system in preference to a system of drilled wells which, in the past, has proven to be unsatisfactory.
I am cognizant of the fact that installation of such a system is not without engineering problems. I appeal to the present minister, knowing her interest in the welfare of the Indian people, to take this case under immediate advisement. The cost of extending pipe line facilities to the reservation may, I fully understand, constitute a rather expensive proposition, but I have no hesitation in recommending it to the minister's attention for two very important reasons. First, we should always be mindful of our obligations to care for our Indian people in all parts of Canada. Second, the cost of pipe lines would be an extremely modest investment if used as a means of warding off a horrible


epidemic brought about by further governmental neglect of this problem which, may I say, has been inherited by the present administration.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, I have a considerable number of questions I want to ask the minister later regarding the public archives and the national gallery but I should like to make a few remarks now and ask some questions on the citizenship and immigration part of the minister's responsibilities.
I asked a question some time ago on the order paper about the backlog of immigration applications in Italy. My question stemmed from questions asked in the house during the last session of the then minister. In essence, I interpreted what the former minister told us as meaning that one of the reasons for the backlog in Italy, which he said could not be relieved by establishing additional offices, was that there was a lack of co-operation on the part of the Italian authorities. That seemed to me to be implicit in his answer although not there in actual words.
I have spoken to a number of people of Italian background in my community and they still insist to me that one of the best things that could be done to improve Canada's immigration service in Italy would be the establishment of one or more offices in the field. I made this point the last time I had the opportunity and the minister turned it down, as I interpret it, because there was a lack of Italian co-operation. I should like to have the opinion of the present minister in this regard. I should also like to know how big the backlog is at the present time and whether it is continuing to grow.
One other factor has come to my attention affecting several Italian immigrants who have come to Canada, obtained Canadian citizenship, have then wanted to go to the United States and have sought to be placed on the quota list. Until these cases were drawn to my attention I did not know that despite the fact they are American citizens they are not treated as such by the United States government which places people on their quotas, I understand, according to national origin.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I think the hon. member made a slip of the tongue. He said "despite the fact they are American citizens". He meant Canadian citizens.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Canadian citizens. I know that the minister, because of her statements, is as anxious as I am that these people should have full Canadian rights with regard to moving to another country, but they do not have full Canadian rights. I know that the answer is, what can Canada do about it, but I wonder whether representations have been

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
made and discussions held with the United States authorities on this point and what reply they have made.
Another matter in connection with immigration that interests me has to do with whether there has been any recent improvement in the handling of people in Poland who desire to come to Canada. From the difficulties that people in this country have who are anxious to bring out relatives from Poland, it is obvious that while the Polish government is co-operating it is not doing so as fully as it might. It is also obvious that there is quite a load on the Canadian officers in Warsaw in this regard. I should like to have a statement on what the situation is at the present time in terms of difficulty and whether there has been any recent improvement.
On the topic of our Indians I was interested that the former minister under the Liberal regime should have mentioned the Pickle Crow experience. I am not surprised. I was interested to note that is one place where good work has been done because my first full time job was in the Pickle Crow area working underground. I remember that the biggest shock I ever had as a Canadian occurred at the Central Patricia mine when I walked over from the bunkhouse to the cookhouse for my first dinner. I may say that the meals were very good and there was a whole line of garbage cans outside with a considerable amount of waste. At each garbage can there were three or four Indian children and women fishing around in them. I will always remember that at the first garbage can there was a quite attractive Indian girl of about 16. A couple of cantaloup rinds and some blueberries were floating on top of the garbage and this young girl was fishing them out as if they were prizes.
It is a shock that has never left me and I have been very curious and pleased to discover just in the last six or seven months the attempts that have been made in that area to get work for some of the Indians. I know from some of the inquiries that have come in from the mine property that it is almost a mine philanthropy in a sense in that some of the miners and some of the management officers are trying to look after the aged Indians, trying to find out such things as their date of birth, and this is an especially good example.
One of the difficulties in connection with Indians doing any permanent work in the pulp and paper operations in my area is that there has been a switch in the pulp and paper operations to the use of the chain saw. The difficulty is that the chain saws are quite expensive and the Indians do not seem
to have the aptitude towards taking care of those chain saws and the general equipment that other people have. While they are good workers while they are working and can quite often turn out a pretty high cordage, it seems very difficult to give them an incentive to work steadily. The tendency is that after they cut 15 cords or 20 cords they come in and get paid for it and then they lounge around, taking it easy. It is very hard to get them to integrate into the bunkhouse set up or the dormitory set up that one has in pulp and paper operations.
In the area from Sioux Lookout east along the north line of the C.N.R. and down towards the lakehead where a great deal of pulpwood is cut, I think much more use could be made of Indians. I think it is a challenge to the Indian affairs branch to try to get them working for more companies and with greater co-operation. I think in a sense it will be a philanthropy for some time on the part of these companies doing this; it may be some time before they begin to get a real return from the Indians. I know I talked to one woods manager who told me that the only place they had really been able to get a full return from the Indians happened to be in connection with where they were cutting up some burned pulp wood stands right handy to an Indian reservation. Because there was a little bit of stability in the Indian community they turned out very good work. From my knowledge of the Indian agents in the particular region from which I come, I do not feel that they in themselves have the scope or the imagination to carry out this sort of work. In other words, I am suggesting an expansion of a kind of work that I do not believe the department has tackled up till now in any consistent way.
One of the other comments I wanted to make I received from two chiefs in that particular area. I am not going to name them or the band because they were quite specific about that; but they both feel that the Indian agents have their interest at heart, that they are in many ways kind and considerate men but that they definitely take the attitude "We know best". In the case of one chief and his band in particular, this is a fairly consistent aggravation. The minister may know from her dealings now with the Indians how hard it is to get them to give you concrete proposals that you can present to remedy things. I suppose it is just something that has to move along and grow and develop. The only suggestion I can make in this regard is that she try as best she can to get her Indian agents to subdue that attitude "We know what is best for you" and to see if they can move further along
4030	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration the line of encouraging the Indians to take more responsibility for their own affairs.
I do not know whether or not the minister has read the book by a young lad who came out from England and worked as an agent at the Gull Bay Indian reserve. It is a sort of a lark. I think it is very pleasing to read. I think he stretched a long bow in certain places; but contained within the book, I think, is a fairly good indication of the Indian character, at least as it is manifested in northwestern Ontario.
I should like to see some of the best minds in the country, especially in the sociological sense, turned loose on that particular problem to see what we can do. I will not say to alter the Indian character but to get into the Indian life some of the incentives that the rest of the Canadian community accepts and at present the Indian does not. That is about all of the questions and remarks I have for now until we come to the archives.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on citizenship and immigration estimates. The city of Kitchener which is in my riding of Waterloo North is probably the greatest cosmopolitan centre of its size in Canada. Kitchener has over 500 Jewish people, 500 Polish people, 4,000 Germans and many others from foreign countries. My correspondence, as you can well understand, is made up of about 40 per cent of citizenship and immigration problems. I should like to take this opportunity of extending my sincere thanks to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration for the wonderful co-operation I have received from her during this session and from those in her department. Through her efforts many families have been brought together after many years of separation. These people are becoming fine citizens of this great Canada of ours. On their behalf I again say to the minister: Thanks a million for your co-operation and that of your department.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: My remarks at this time, Mr. Chairman, at this time will be rather brief. However, I should just like to say a few words on behalf of the hundreds of people who are spread throughout Europe, families that were broken up during the war and for different reasons wives and children have been unable to get to this country to join their husbands. I know that most of those people are behind the iron curtain. On their behalf I should like to make a strong appeal to the minister and use every influence she has with the Russian embassy in trying to see if we cannot get some of these people out here and get those families united again.
Like my friend the hon. member for Waterloo North, in my county, which is a


good place to live, we have a great many people who come in and a great many people who would like to come in. In my dealings with the immigration department I find that we run across a great many problems which you might say were borderline problems. You might say that I was a bit of a border problem myself when I came into this country and I realize what it is all about. I recall that when I came to this country two things were necessary. You had to be vaccinated. You had to have $15. I was vaccinated, all right, but I did not have the $15. However, my brother was with us. He went into the immigration shed first, showed his vaccination, showed his $15 and came around and pushed it through the slats to me. I then went in and we both entered for the same price. I hope the minister will not look back too much at my record or she might want to deport me.
There is another matter that I should like to raise at this time. It has to do with British subjects from Hong Kong. A number of them are trying all the time to get into this country. I think we are just a little bit hard in that respect. For one thing, they must be less than 21 years of age. I think the age limit could be raised somewhat, which would certainly help in many cases. It is rather unfortunate that a British subject should find it so hard to get into Canada when he can get into other parts of the British commonwealth quite easily.
There is another matter which I would like to bring forward and that is in connection with those immigrants who have come to Canada who are elderly people. A great many of them try from time to time to get their citizenship papers but they find that they are unable to do so because they have not been able to learn to speak the English language. I think when we are dealing with people who are getting up in years, say 60 or 70 years of age, they should have the privilege of becoming Canadian citizens before they pass on. In special cases I think the fact that they do not speak English should be overlooked.
I have not prepared a speech because I did not expect to speak at this time but I would like the minister to look into the situation with respect to families behind the iron curtain. I have in mind particularly the Chinese people who wish to bring their children and in some cases their wives or other relatives to join them in Canada but find that there is a great problem in getting them out here. I also wish to mention the problem of those people who have come to Canada from Hong Kong and I would ask that consideration be given to this whole

problem of making it easier for Asiatic people to come to Canada. I do not mean we should open the door and let them all come in but I do feel that in special cases where there is a real reason for relaxing the regulations we should not stick to technicalities.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Citizenship-
59. Citizenship registration branch, $511,513.
Ellen Louks Fairclough: Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one or two remarks in reference to comments made in this debate. First, on the question raised by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate with respect to the remarks of a judge at a citizenship proceeding, I am sure we all regretted that these remarks should have been made. Whether they were actually made in the form in which they appeared in the press is, of course, open to question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had the same idea and that is why I did not mention the name of the judge.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure there is no hon. member of this house who has not had some of his remarks misinterpreted or the wrong impression taken from them but, be that as it may, I think we might well be guided in our thinking by the words of a famous English poet who probably was not thinking of immigration when he penned those memorable lines "that man's the true cosmopolite who loves his native country best."
The hon. member for Fort William said, among other things, that there should be equality for all Canadians, and I might say that that is the motive behind the presentation of the amendment to the Citizenship Act, which I think we will be considering in this house next week.
With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Lincoln in regard to applicants for citizenship who are unable to convince the court of their knowledge of the English language, may I say that this is a matter within the discretion of the court. A judge may, if he thinks it proper, give citizenship status to these people after they have a residence of 20 years, even though they do not have what he considers to be adequate knowledge of one of the two languages of Canada.


John Smith: I might suggest that that information be passed along to a great many judges who do not seem to be aware of that practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to make one
observation and ask one or two questions of the minister. The hon. lady quoted the hon.
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. I am sure she did not intentionally misinterpret the hon. gentleman, but since she quoted his remarks I have looked at his speech and it seems to me quite clear that what he was advocating was a compulsory citizenship certificate for everyone. While I am not endorsing the hon. gentleman's remarks, I do think they make the observations of the minister beside the point.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I just say in that
regard that the hon. member is quite right. I did misconstrue the remarks of the hon. gentleman but my offer still holds.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh yes, I am sure that if the hon. lady would like a little advertising for these cards-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have one myself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have one of my own,
signed by myself, and I have often wondered whether it might not confuse the people at the border if I ever used it, but there are very few of us who can have that distinction-the hon. lady, Mr. Harris and myself.
The first question I wanted to ask was whether the hon. lady could say whether there are any communities in Canada other than Toronto and Montreal-that is to say large urban areas-where it would appear to be advisable to establish federal courts. I know there are outlying places where federal courts are established but I am wondering if, for instance, in Vancouver, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Edmonton-which I suppose would be the most congested places, and there may be others-the ordinary courts are adequately coping with the load of citizenship applications.
The other question I wish to ask was whether the hon. lady would indicate, because I think this would be of interest to the country, the revenue of the citizenship registration branch? I have the impression that it is really rather too bad that we should advertise the fact that we are spending half a million dollars on this branch when in fact I doubt if we are spending very much at all.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: In reply to the first question of the hon. member, I am personally of the opinion that this is a matter which needs great consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is to say the urban
centres?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, and I have already embarked upon a study of the problem. I hope to come up with some sort of reasonable solution during my tenure of office.
With regard to the revenue of the branch, in 1956-57 it was $419,085 and in 1957-58
4032	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration it was $368,624, which, as the hon. member says, bears some relation to the outlay.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
60. Citizenship branch, $921,305.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Just one question on this matter; I think this is the vote which includes language classes, although I am speaking from memory.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the hon. lady can say whether there has been any further development. There are some parts of Canada from which we have perhaps not received as much co-operation in this regard as we would have wished, and I wonder if perhaps the hon. lady had attempted to exercise her wiles on her friends in the province of Quebec, for example, to see if perhaps a little more co-operation could be obtained from the Quebec government?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not normally go about my work in that fashion. I find that the latest estimate of yearly enrolment in language classes is close to 50,000 students, and the federal share of conducting those classes last year increased by 15 per cent to some $240,000. The branch has been promoting, more particularly, the establishment of new types of classes for housewives, night shift workers and immigrants awaiting job placement. The branch has also begun, with the co-operation of the various departments of education, a series of regional training seminaries for teachers in order to improve the effectiveness of instruction methods.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was one other question. I believe one of the last actions of which I have much recollection was to authorize a research project in which the University of Toronto was interested, and I wonder if the hon. lady has any information about that.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We do not have that report just yet. When we do receive it I will be glad to let the hon. gentleman know.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister answer the question about the Canadian writers' foundation and the reason for ending the grant?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: The jurisdiction for that has changed. It is now under the Canada Council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]

Immigration branch-
62. Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,235,232.
John Whitney Pickersgill: On item 62, if the hon. lady would like to have my questions before she answers the other ones-


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Very well.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked a question on the order paper and the hon. lady answered it the other day. It was about Chinese immigration, whether there have been any changes in the procedure. The hon. lady said there had not been any changes since the present administration came into office. I understand that the hon. lady recently received a memorandum from the Chinese benevolent association making certain representations to the department and I wondered whether consideration of that had been completed, and if any changes were in contemplation in consequence.
I wondered also whether, now that the British West Indies Federation has been established, any steps had been taken toward reaching some kind of agreement with that federation similar to the agreements we have with India, Pakistan and Ceylon. I do not know, of course, whether it is the intention to proceed in that way. I know it had been my intention, which I discussed with my colleagues when I was in office, to take up this matter as soon as the federation was established if I was in a position to do so. I do think it would be a very good thing to do because there is a real problem here, a problem which in my opinion is not easy of solution.
Like the hon. member for Port Arthur, I am very much interested in what it is possible now to do in Poland. I do know that in the last few months I was minister because of certain things that had happened it was becoming a good deal easier for people with relatives here in Canada to get out of Poland and we were doing our utmost in the department to facilitate their entry to Canada in cases where they came within the category of relatives admitted from other European countries.
I am sure the hon. lady would not expect me to let this opportunity pass without asking her to bring me up to date on the interesting history of Mr. George Christian Hanna, the gentleman who was of great interest to the hon. lady's party and party organization, in one part of the country at least, not so very long ago.
I should also like to know in more general terms whether any change whatsoever has been made in deportation procedures since the present administration took office on June 21, and if any change has been made in the procedures for appeals in cases of deportation.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
These are some questions that occur to me, though it is possible that the hon. lady will raise more by her answers.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I have a few comments I wanted to make on immigration, but 1 think that most of these will be covered by questions. However, there is one question which has been raised by the hon. member on which I did want to make a statement. I am sure he will find that interesting, also.
I might say with regard to all these problems-Chinese immigration, people from behind the iron curtain, those who have left iron curtain countries and are in other countries but not in Canada, and the situation in Italy-we have been grappling with all these problems. We have been handicapped, of course, by the fact that the house has been sitting during the whole time that this minister has been in charge of the administration. We have discussed some of these problems, and we have come to some sort of agreement among ourselves, but we have not yet been able to put them into effect or to present them for the consideration of the government as a whole. However, on this one problem of non-immigrants in Canada we have come to a decision, and on that matter I should like to say a few words.
An increased number of non-immigrants have, after entry, applied for permanent residence in Canada. Many of them have obtained employment. A good number are from countries where, if they had applied in that country for an immigrant visa, this would have been refused.
In order to dispose of the applications now on hand, which number over 700, it has been decided to review each case. If the case appears to have merit and if the applicant can readily be absorbed into our economy, consideration will be given to recommending to the governor in council that the non-immigrant be exempted from the operation of the immigration regulations relating to admissibility for permanent residence.
Non-immigrants now in Canada who wish to remain permanently and have not yet applied will have until March 1, 1959, to submit their applications. Those who submit their applications before that date will be dealt with exactly the same as those who, as of today, have applied for permanent residence. This procedure however will not apply to persons who are now under order of deportation and whose cases have been reviewed on appeal and the appeal dismissed.
The non-immigrants who will enter Canada after today or who are now in Canada and
will apply after the first of March, 1959, will be dealt with according to the Immigration Act and regulations.
It is expected this action will permit the admission of the major portion of those applying and will eliminate misunderstandings which have created difficulties in the past. This new procedure respecting non-immigrants is a very important result of the extensive review of immigration policy and procedures begun by the government shortly after June 21, 1957, and will be a major step in the government's promise to strengthen, stabilize, and put more human understanding into this country's immigration program.
As I said before, this is a matter which has been under consideration for some time, and I am sure the hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate will view it sympathetically because he knows from experience the tremendous number of problems that arise in immigration. We have still a great deal to do, but I hope we will get most of these problems solved.
I feel I must say a word or two about some statements which have been made, and while I have agreed up to now with most of the things which have been said by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I think I must remind him, as the acting minister reminded him last year, that the slowdown in immigration was instituted by the hon. gentleman himself when he was minister of citizenship and immigration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I might mention that the hon. lady has slowed down the passage of her estimates by making that observation.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I do not intend this to be controversial, but the actual cut-off date was April 12, 1957.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. lady like me to clear that up right now?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Go ahead.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There has been some considerable misunderstanding of this matter. I cleared it up on the day we took interim supply last October, and I cleared it up again in January, but it seems to be necessary to repeat these things a good number of times before they are understood. On April 12, 1957 I gave a direction to the department that no visas were to be issued that would be valid after July 31. As some hon. members will recall I expected to be somewhat preoccupied elsewhere than in the department between April 12 and June 10 and in fact I was. At that time I said the whole question would be reviewed after June 10. Although I was minister for 12 days after June 10 I felt this was a proper matter for review by my successor; but there was
4034	HOUSE OF
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration nothing which restricted immigration up to the time the former administration went out of office.
It was apparent by April 12 that there was going to be an unprecedently large immigration in the year 1957 and, as I said earlier, it turned out to be the biggest year since 1913. I believe I was properly apprehensive that we might find in the autumn more people than could obtain work. I thought it was wise at that time to indicate that visas should not be granted for travel to Canada after July 31 but that, of course, would have been subject to review in the light of conditions that existed in the latter part of June. As I say, circumstances developed which made it seem to me improper for me to review that matter.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman has been misunderstood there has been no more misunderstanding of his action than his interpretation of the actions of former governments in the thirties. On this point the hon. member for Fort William described immigration as being practically at a standstill. I believe those were his words. I should like to say this is a misconception of the actual conditions. Up until June 30 of this year there were 67,744 immigrants received into Canada. I would scarcely call that a standstill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. lady give the corresponding figure for 1957?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Surely, Mr. Chairman. The year 1957 was exceptional. There were 282,164 immigrants admitted during the entire year, 182,000 of them during the first six months. But going back to 1956 only 69,900 were admitted in the first six months, only about 2,000 more than were admitted in the first six months of this year. Approximately 58,000 entered in the first six months of 1955, nearly 10,000 less than were admitted during the first half of the current year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, doubtless the hon. lady will recall that that was the year she and her colleague on this side of the house were putting on a big campaign about unemployment.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: That was not the reason, Mr. Chairman. In fact, it does not make much difference what the reason is and if the hon. gentleman wishes to cite reasons for these developments we could go back a long way but I have one eye on the clock and would like to get these estimates through if possible. We admitted to Canada approximately 10,000 more immigrants in the first six months of 1958 than were admitted during the first six months of 1955.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know if these applications were approved this year?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: These immigrants actually entered this year.


Hubert Badanai: Actual entries, not applications?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They actually landed in Canada in the first six months of this year.


Hubert Badanai: My question is were these applications approved this year?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Well, some of them, I presume, would have been approved last year and it takes a while for them to be processed and for the immigrants to journey to Canada.


Hubert Badanai: Yes, that is the point. How many months will it take for applications to be processed and approved?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: It depends on where
they come from. For instance, in the case of Italy it takes some time and we have a backlog from Italy of nearly 60,000.


Hubert Badanai: That is precisely the point I was making, Mr. Chairman. Applications are not being approved at the present time. Many who entered this year would have had their applications approved last year.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall the item
carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I asked the hon. lady a considerable number of questions and I expect answers to them.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I was under the impression that I had answered all the questions on immigration problems although I grant you I grouped several together.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. For example, the hon. lady did not give me the latest chapter in the history of Mr. Hanna.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize for that oversight. I had that notation on a separate piece of paper, Mr. Hanna, as hon. gentlemen know, was tried for an offence and as is the case with all persons tried in Canada he had the right of appeal. We extended his stay, I believe until August 15. Finally, in the last few days before he would have been due to depart, he entered an appeal. I understand he had some difficulty trying to secure legal support for his appeal and having failed to do so he filed the appeal himself. It is my understanding that the matter comes up for review in September and of course until that time it is before the courts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am going to ask the hon. lady if she will appeal to her colleague and supporter in the house, the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard who was so very anxious to give Mr. Hanna legal help at a time when he was seeking illegal entry to Canada, and suggest that it is certainly a moral obligation upon that hon. member to offer his services as a lawyer to Mr. Hanna in this appeal. I also asked the hon. lady about deportation procedures generally and if there had been any change since last year.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: No, Mr. Chairman, not since last year. It is one of many problems with which we are grappling at the present time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should now like to make a comment or two about the announcement made by the hon. lady. What her announcement amounted to when stripped of all its verbiage is that instead of considering each application individually as has been the case in the past she is attempting to establish a cut-off date so as to consider all these cases at once and then apply all the full rigours of the law after March 1. Having dealt with those cases as they arose over a period of some three years, I can understand why any minister would seek to formalize the procedure and reduce the amount of agony connected with it, but I would not like the hon. lady to get away with the impression that this represents any liberalization of the policy of the department because it is in fact the precise reverse. I do not think she will be successful in maintaining her cut-off date but, of course, I do not blame her for trying. We all have to try these things and learn from experience.
There is one other question I should like to ask the hon. lady that occurred to me as she was talking and it is this. Is she satisfied with the efficiency of the immigration branch and of the employees in the branch, speaking generally? I ask that question because when the hon. lady was on this side of the house-I do not know that she did herself but a considerable number of her colleagues on this side of the house and a considerable number of their supporters outside the house-spent a great deal of their time talking about the heartless bureaucracy and the soulless officials in the immigration branch. I always thought this was the most unfair and unwarranted kind of criticism. I never minded the criticism of the heartlessness of the minister because I could reply to that, but I thought the attack on the immigration branch as being composed of a particularly soulless lot of bureaucrats was most unfair because I do not know any more devoted group of public servants anywhere
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration in the public service of Canada than those who work in the immigration branch. I wish to pay them this tribute as their former minister. I wondered if on closer acquaintance with the department the minister did not find that in this respect at least I was right?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I never said a word of that kind on this subject in this house. I think the hon. member's remarks are out of place but in any event he answered himself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in answering myself. I would like the hon. lady's answer.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to turn the discussion of these estimates into a court of inquiry into the activities of the employees of the immigration branch.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. lady must be forgetting where she is. We are the elected representatives of the people. The hon. lady is one of Her Majesty's advisors charged with carrying out the functions of a particular department of the federal government. She is here craving supply to carry on her department. It is the duty especially of those elected to oppose the government to carry on an inquisition into the efficiency of every department. That is what we are elected for and what we intend to do.
This is an example of arrogance which I had not expected from the hon. lady; this is a display such as we never had from the gentleman who used to sit in the seat in which she is sitting at this very moment. In all my experience in this house I can never remember that gentleman saying that other members of the house were not entitled to ask questions about the administration of his department. It is true that he occasionally became a little impatient with the constant repetition of questions but he never suggested that the opposition did not have the right to ask him questions. I can assure you, sir, that just so long as there are members to interrupt me, and spell me off and just so long as I have questions to ask about the immigration branch-and I do not care whether they are called an inquisition or anything else-I will go on carrying out the duty for which I was elected and ask those questions. I repeat my question. I ask the honourable lady whether she is satisfied with the efficiency of the employees of the immigration branch, and I feel I am entitled to an answer.

Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, I submit to hon. members that that is not a fair question. I have answered all the hon. member's questions to the best of my ability, but when he groups a large number of people, 2,000 people, and asks me whether I am completely satisfied with each and every one of them, it is a question which I could not possibly answer.


Robert Muir: Idiotic.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I can assure the hon. member that if I find there are people in my department who are inefficient I will take appropriate action. The fact that they are there means one of two things, either that I am satisfied with their activities or that I have not heard about them yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that the hon. lady has given a very clever and very effective reply and I give her full marks. But still she would not expect me to let her put words in my mouth. I did not ask her whether she was completely satisfied with every employee. I will phrase my question in the way I meant it to be understood. Perhaps I was a little sloppy in phrasing it. But I ask her, is she satisfied after-the months go on; is it three months, the hon. lady would know how long she has been the minister-three months and more with the efficiency of the immigration branch?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, it is very hard to answer that question without going into the whole field of immigration policy. Let me say I am not satisfied with the policy generally. If I were, I would not have been taking part in the various discussions and investigations on which I reported a few minutes ago. There are a great many things that still need to be done. In so far as the efficiency of the civil service is concerned, I think by and large most of our civil servants are extremely efficient individuals.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the answer I expected.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like to ask the minister to answer the questions I put in connection with one immigration office in Italy and also with regard to the attitude towards naturalized Canadians, also the situation in Poland and in Finland.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I thought I had answered the questions with regard to Poland. They are all a part of the over-all immigration policy which we are considering very carefully. The manner of the entry of naturalized Canadians into the United States is not properly a problem of this department. If

the question were put to any department of government it should be put to external affairs.
With regard to the question on Italy, last year in round figures we had a backlog of about 45,000. This year we have a backlog of 60,000 in the one office. One of the difficulties of opening other offices is that we fear it would just create a larger and larger backlog because of the greater facilities to receive applications. We hope that because of the considerations of policy which are under way at the present time we may find a solution to this great problem.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hope the minister does. I think she will recognize the contribution the hon. member for Fort William made, the more people we get out from that fine country the better. Since we have the legal opportunities for them to come to this country or, at least, the openings, as a result of government policies, it is a pity that some of them cannot take advantage of it.
On the question of the United States quota system, the minister has expressed her interest in making the naturalized Canadian citizenship as good as the full Canadian, that is, the Canadian who was born here. I think that is the intent of her legislation. Well, surely, citizenship is something that you can carry abroad with you, and in that sense could this question of the United States quota not be something that she could consider? I mean, follow it up and ask external affairs to take up the matter. I was curious as to whether there had ever been any discussion with the United States on this particular point.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, it would seem to be not quite proper for us to try to dictate the immigration policy of another country but I am quite willing to explore the matter with the Department of External Affairs to see whether they can make representations in that regard. But, as the hon. member said himself, the United States policy is based on a different conception from ours, and they go on the country of origin, as the hon. member has said.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It still remains, Mr. Chairman, a fact that I would like the minister to look into it.
I would like to raise another important point, which is a matter of keen interest to me. Two Canadians are living side by side; one a native-born and the other is a naturalized Canadian. They decide to go to the United States. The minister must recognize that one is in a much better position to get in. Surely, that impinges upon the worth of our citizenship.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. member for Bona-vista-Twillingate asked the minister some questions with regard to the brief submitted by the Chinese benevolent association, dated July 25, 1958. I just want to speak for a few minutes. I am not in any hurry. This is a brief of some 13 pages, which is very well prepared by the persons in this excellent benevolent association. I have very carefully read it and I do not intend to read it completely this afternoon, but I do urge the minister to give very serious consideration to their representations for some extension of the regulations wtih respect to the admission of relatives. I have one other matter, and I mention it purely because of the fact that when the minister was in opposition several of her colleagues supported briefs similar to this when they were brought to the attention of the government of the day. I wish to say that in my experience I find that these Chinese people are very popular with the population in general. There were early settlers in our district and had a lot to do with early gold mining; they were cooks in labour camps; they were in steam-boating, laundries, vegetable gardening and things of that sort. I do not know of any group that is more popular as a long-time residence group than the older Chinese in my constituency. I do hope the minister will give very serious consideration to their representations. I say that because the present Minister without Portfolio was one of the ministers who spoke very favourably of their representations and the present Minister of National Defence also supported their representations. The present Minister of Justice was very sympathetic towards the views of these people.
But I do want to bring to the minister's attention one thing that struck me. I think they have to go at the present time to some territory under the control of the nationalist Chinese government and they are not accepted in Hong Kong. I cannot find the reference just now but they made some representations with respect to the place of application. Then they mention that the number of officers in Hong Kong is too small to deal with the applications and that prospective immigrants have had to wait from 5 months to more than a year before being examined. The brief goes on to propose that the number of immigration officials be substantially increased. Would the minister inform the house if the government is giving serious consideration to the representations of the Chinese benevolent association and if she has any opinion with respect to the shortage of officers in her department's office in Hong Kong?
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Mr. Chairman, when I answered a few minutes ago with regard to the general problems of immigration I meant it to be understood that this was one of the very trying problems we are trying to solve. We have had representations not only from the Chinese benevolent association but also from other groups of Chinese and Japanese. The department is very carefully considering all of the representations that have been made and, as I said, it is one of the problems we are trying to solve at the present time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to bring to the minister's attention a letter written to me which I think suggests somewhat of a compromise with regard to the more or less emphatic views expressed by the former minister of citizenship and immigration with respect to Canadian born immigrants and latecomers. I think there is an idea in this letter in view of the fact that there are numbers of these children who should be cared for. The letter was written to me by Mr. Charles H. Bebbington, a very well known person in Kootenay West. In it he says:
Having been in the position to observe Canadian immigration policies over a period of 60 years I would like to submit the following impressions and suggestions.
In the early days we were chiefly concerned with getting immigrants who could do heavy physical work such as building our railroads, clearing our forests, etc. Now, owing to the great advances in mechanical production methods, this class of immigrant is not so necessary. But Canada still has plenty of room for good immigrants and I think that a method that has not been tried would avoid some of the errors of past systems.
Why could we not select orphan children from European countries, build boarding schools in which to keep and educate them and bring them up to a natural Canadian citizenship? When old enough to start work they would be able to give Canada 40 to 50 years, their best years, before becoming a charge on the country because of old age. Unlike the adult immigrant they would not have to change from their native methods of work or living conditions and the language barrier would be eliminated through their childhood environment.
Canada can afford to take time to do this now as we are not desperately in need of adult immigrants. In fact it has been suggested in many quarters that the brakes be put on mainly because of the adverse effect on our labour market. By the scheme I am suggesting we would still be getting immigrants who would in due course fit perfectly into our social set-up and would automatically assume all the rights and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
This would appear to be a better way to help unfortunate children of the world than by sending money out of Canada to help them. We are proud of Canadian-made goods; these children would be Canadian-made citizens and, if carefully selected, should give strength to the country of their adoption.
Some will say that we are having difficulty educating our own children. If more stress were to be put on training these children for work in useful trades we would have little difficulty in finding places for well trained artisans. We want young citizens for a young country.

403S
Supply-Citizenship and Immigration
I mention that because I have had the very same idea brought to my attention by a number of other persons. I am not sure to what extent such a policy could be pursued but in view of the fact that there are these orphans in Europe and in view of the suggestion in this letter would the minister inform the house if such a policy has ever been given consideration or would be given consideration?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I am afraid that is much too broad a suggestion to discuss without very serious consideration. It is a new suggestion to me. I will be very glad to think about it but I could not consider discussing it right now.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
65. To provide, subject to the approval of treasury-board, for trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers including care en route and while awaiting employment; and to provide further for payments to the provinces pursuant to agreements entered into, with the approval of the governor in council, in respect of expenses incurred by the provinces for indigent immigrants, $8,180,000.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been asked to ask the minister a number of questions and I think this is the right item. Could the minister tell the house the number of Hungarians who have been educated at public expense at the University of British Columbia, what was the cost per immigrant, what the total cost has been and who provided the accommodation? I should like any information she has so that I can reply to my inquirers.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: This, of course, is a rather broad subject. I have a wealth of information on it. We have not paid for the education of these students. We have supplied subsistence for them.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is what I mean, the amount per day or per month.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Yes, I can give that. While the officials are looking up the figures for me, I might say that if the hon. member would care to put his questions on paper I would be glad to give him factual answers to all of them next week or whenever he wishes to write to me.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will do that. I will write a letter to the minister.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I will give this figure now. For accommodation for 9 months at Vancouver the amount is $178,425.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Who provided the quarters for them?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: They moved around. First of all they went to Powell River and then they moved into town at a later date. I will also be able to give that information to the hon. member, unless he wishes me to pursue the matter now.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Were there quarters supplied by the Royal Canadian Air Force?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: I believe that some
R.C.A.F. property on Sea island, not being used at that time for other purposes, was made available for a very short time.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I will take the opportunity to write the minister a letter giving the details.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: We will be very glad to give the member any information we have on the subject.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

John Whitney Pickersgill: I would ask the leader of the house to tell us again what the program is for Monday and Tuesday so that it will be in Hansard.


Mr. Green:: On Monday we shall commence with item No. 4 on today's order paper, which is a bill respecting broadcasting; then item No. 3, a bill to amend the Customs Act; item No. 11, the resolution concerning the South Saskatchewan river project; item No. 7, an amendment to the Canadian Citizenship Act; item No. 5, a bill authorizing the construction of a bridge between Campobello island and Maine; item No. 6, a bill having to do with supply; and item No. 7, amendments to the Railway Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Item No. 7 is with respect to citizenship.


Howard Charles Green: I am not sure of the order which will be followed on Tuesday. This is the order for Monday.


[Stage Direction]
It being two minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.

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


[Stage Direction]
A-Department and missions abroad-
85.	Departmental administration (including the former passport office administration), $5,533,081.
86.	Representation abroad-operational-including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salary rates of high commissioners, ambassadors, ministers plenipotentiary consuls, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $8,576,875.
87.	Representation abroad-construction, acquisition or improvement of buildings, works, land, equipment and furnishings, and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures, to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, $1,412,688.
88.	To provide for official hospitality, $40,000.
89.	To provide for relief and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens abroad and their dependents and for the reimbursement of the United
Supply-Items Passed
Kingdom for relief expenditures incurred by its diplomatic and consular posts on Canadian account (part recoverable), $15,000.
90.	Canadian representation at international conferences, $243,000.
91.	Grant to the United Nations Association in Canada, $11,000.
92.	Grant to the international committee of the Red Cross, $15,000.
93.	Grant to the Canadian Atlantic co-ordinating committee, $2,500.
94.	To authorize and provide for the payment of fellowships and scholarships and travelling expenses to enable Canadians to study overseas, and to the extent that blocked funds are available for these expenditures to provide for payment from these foreign currencies owned by Canada and provided only for governmental or other limited purposes, and for payment to the royal society of Canada of amounts not to exceed $10,000 in all to meet travelling and other administrative costs incurred by the society for those it may designate to act on its behalf in selecting persons to receive fellowships and scholarships, $42,700.
B-General-
95. To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in international (including commonwealth) organizations, as detailed in the estimates, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $3,549,055.
96. To provide for the Canadian government's contribution to the United Nations expanded program for technical assistance to under-developed countries in an amount of $2,000,000 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $1,976,875.
97.	Contribution to the United Nations children's fund, $650,000.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization-
98.	To provide, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for special administrative expenses, including payment of remuneration, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian government of Canadians to the international staff of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (part recoverable from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization), $51,109.
99.	To provide for a further contribution by the Canadian government towards the cost of constructing the North Atlantic Treaty Organization permanent headquarters in an amount of 121,600,000 French francs, notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $286,247.
International civil aviation organization-
100.	To provide the international civil aviation organization with office accommodation at less than commercial rates, $214,971.
101.	To provide for a payment to the international civil aviation organization in part reimbursement of compensation paid to its Canadian employees for Quebec income tax for the 1957 taxation year, $7,500.
International joint commission-
102.	Salaries and expenses of the commission including, subject to the approval of the governor in council and notwithstanding the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, as amended, payment of salary of the chairman of $17,500 per annum, $109,248.
103.	To provide for Canada's share of the expenses of studies, surveys and investigations of the international joint commission, $244,950.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed
Terminable services-
104.	Colombo plan. $35,000,000.
105.	To provide for the Canadian government's assessment for membership in the inter-governmental committee for European migration in an amount of $261,238 U.S., notwithstanding that payment may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $258,218.
106.	To provide for a grant by the Canadian government to the United Nations refugee fund, $200,000.
107.	Canadian participation in the work of the European productivity agency of the organization for European economic co-operation, $20,000.
108.	Contribution to the United Nations relief and works agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, $500,000.
109.	To provide for the cost of Canada's civilian participation as a member of the international commissions for supervision and control in Indo-China including authority, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salary rates of commissioners, secretaries and staff by the governor in council, $389,489.
110.	To provide for technical assistance to the West Indies and to Ghana, $135,000.
111.	To provide for the purchase of wheat and flour to be given to India, Pakistan and Ceylon to relieve food shortages, $10,000,000.
502. To authorize, for the purpose of supplementing economic assistance given under the Colombo plan, special loans to Colombo plan countries to finance the purchase of wheat and flour from Canada, subject to such terms and conditions and at such rates of interest as the governor in council prescribes, $10,000,000.
A-Department and missions abroad
542.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $259,230.
543. Representation	abroad-operational-further amount required, $170,530.
B-General
International joint commission-
544.	Salaries and expenses of the commission-further amount required, $1,800.
Terminable services-
545.	To provide for the purchase of wheat and flour to be given to India, Pakistan and Ceylon to relieve food shortages-further amount required, $3,000,000.
546.	To provide for the purchase of flour to be given to the United Nations relief and work agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East, $1,500,000.
547.	To provide for a contribution to the 1958 fellowship fund of the international atomic energy agency, $25,000.
548.	To provide for the expenses of the Commonwealth trade and economic conference, $225,000.
549.	West Indies assistance program, $1,475,000.
Loans, investments and advances-
External affairs-
655. To authorize, for the purpose of supplementing economic assistance given under the Colombo plan, special loans to Colombo plan countries to finance the purchase of wheat and flour from Canada, subject to such terms and conditions and at such rates of interest as the governor in council prescribes, $8,827,000.
[Stage Direction]
58.	Departmental administration, $706,492. Citizenship-
59.	Citizenship registration branch, $511,513.
60.	Citizenship branch, $921,305.
61.	Grants to organizations as detailed in the estimates, $37,000.
Immigration branch-
62.	Administration of the Immigration Act, $1,235,232.
63.	Field and inspectional service, Canada, including $13,000 for grants to immigrant welfare organizations, $6,860,732.
64.	Field and inspectional service, abroad, $2,430,645.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. August 25, 1958